Loading...
5. R&A Retail Center: Site Plan Review for Multi Tenant Bldg.{� CITY OF L2_ T'l CHANHASSEN P.C. DATE: 6 -18 -97 15' C.C. DATE: 7 -14 -97 CASE: 97 -4 Site Plan BY: Al -Jaf£v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Site Plan Approval for a 9,680 square foot multi- tenant retail building with the major tenant being Video Update Lot 1, Block 1, Seven and Forty-one Crossing, southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and 41 Mark A. Davis & Associates 821 Marquette Ave. # I I I I Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 341 -3242 R &A Investments, L.L.C. 5591 Bristol Lane Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612)930 -0121 PRESENT ZONING: BN, Neighborhood Business District ACREAGE: 12 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Highway 7 S - 7 &41 Crossings Shopping Center E - Super America W - RSF, single family SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. Action by City Adm4jjt►k7 Endorse lr Modified Rejected._. Daie,�, Date Submitted to Commission Date Submitted to Caunci{ SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is fairly level with mature vegetation along the west boarder. 2000 LAND USE: Residential Medium Density (Net Density Range 4 - 8 units per acre) R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY There applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construction of a 9,680 square foot multi - tenant retail building with the major tenant being Video Update. The site is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Seven and Forty-one Crossing, and is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and 41. The lot area of Lot 1 is 1.2 acres. It is zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District. A retail building is a permitted use in the BN District. Access to the site is proposed to take place via a right -in only from Highway 7, and from Highway 41 across an existing parking lot for the 7 & 41 Shopping Center, to the subject site. One complication facing this development is the fact that the site does not have a legal access point (refer to the background section of the report for details on this issue). The site plan for the retail building is reasonably well developed. The building is proposed to utilize face brick on the east elevation, a combination of face brick and rock face block along the north and south, and rock face block along the west elevation. Two horizontal bands rap around all four sides of the building. Parking for vehicles is located on the east half of the site. Typically, staff works with the applicant to screen parking lots from views. However, the site design for this shopping center is established and it appears that the proposed location for the building is the logical one. The parking lot setback does not meet ordinance requirements from Highway 7. The ordinance allows a 10 foot parking lot setback from public right -of -way in cases when the parking is screened 100 %. Otherwise, it is required to have a 25 foot setback. The site plan is showing a 10 foot setback from Highway 7. Staff is recommending the applicant be given the option of either increasing the landscaping along Highway 7 or increasing the parking lot setback to 25 feet form the northerly property line. The landscaping plan meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. It provides additional buffer between the proposed building and the residential neighborhood to the west. The site plan findings section require that a site plan be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan guides the property as medium density residential. In 1988, when the zoning of the property was changed from OI to BN, a minor comprehensive plan amendment should have been processed concurrently with the rezoning. Staff believes it was an oversight. Staff is recommending the site plan be approved contingent upon an amendment to the comprehensive plan. When staff discovered this error, it was too late to publish it for this agenda, therefore, this portion of the application will appear before you at a later date. The recommendation will be to reguide the property from medium density residential R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 3 to commercial. This amendment will encompass the entire Seven and Forty -one Crossing Subdivision. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, with conditions. BACKGROUND On April 25, 1988, the City Council approved the first reading for the rezoning of the property at the southwest corner of Hwy. 7 and 41 for OI, Office Institutional to BN, Neighborhood Business District. On the same date, the Council also approved the subdivision of the subject property into 3 commercial lots. Lot 2 contains the 7 & 41 Shopping Center and Lot 3 contains the SuperAmerica Gas Station. Lot 1 is the subject site and is proposed to contain a multi- tenant retail building. In 1988, when the site (Shopping Center, SuperAmerica, and the subject site) was being prepared for subdivision and development, it was under single ownership. As the Shopping Center and SuperAmerica were sold off to other parties, a cross access easement was recorded in favor of the SuperAmerica site to share access with the shopping center. The third site (Lot 1, Block 1, Seven and Forty -one Crossing) was left landlocked. Staff brought this matter to the applicant's attention and explained that this is a private issue between the owner of the subject site and the Shopping Center. Staff will process the application contingent upon a cross access easement being granted in favor of Lot 1, Block 1. So far, the parties have not reached an agreement (see letter from Timothy Welch, attorney representing Seven Forty -one Shopping Center, dated May 7, 1997). The applicant requested that the application be tabled until further notice (see letter from Mark Davis, dated April 3, 1997). The City is obligated to act on an applications within 120 days from the day it receives it. The plans were submitted to the City on March 17, 1997. The City must make a decision on the application no later than July 17, 1997, or else, the application would be considered approved as submitted. After approximately two months had passed, staff contacted the applicant and requested that they either withdraw the application or allow the City to process it. We also requested a two month extension to the 120 days. The applicant elected to proceed with the application and granted the two month extension (see letter from Mark Davis dated May 15, 1997). This extension means that the application must be acted upon no later than September 17, 1997. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE The proposed one story multi -tenant retail building, with an area of 9,680 square feet, will be situated parallel to and south of Highway 7. The site is bordered by Highway 7 to the north, SuperAmerica to the east, a residential neighborhood to the west, and 7 & 41 Crossing Shopping Center to the south. Access to the building is proposed from Highway 7 through a right -in only, R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 4 and from Highway 41, through the shopping center parking lot and into a curb cut located south of the subject site. Parking will be located to the east of the proposed building. The building is located 35 feet from the north, 140 feet from the east, 30 feet from the south, and 60 feet from the west property line. Materials used on the building will consist of face brick on the east elevation, a combination of face brick and rock face block along the north and south, and rock face block along the west elevation. The face brick was utilized to match the materials used on the shopping center building. Two horizontal bands rap around all four sides of the building. The entry into the building is defined by raising the middle third of the front elevation by 2 feet. The building's architecture is suitable for a shopping center and meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. A parking lot light plan is required. The current plan shows the light candles which appears to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The plan should incorporate the light style and height. Staff is also requiring a more detailed sign plan which should include lighting method. The site plan shows the trash enclosure located south of the building. The applicant shall use materials to match the building when constructing the trash enclosure. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its ri' ttural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 5 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 development is consistent with the zoning ordinance, however, the comprehensive plan guides the property as medium density residential. In 1988, when - the zoning of the property was changed from to BN, a minor comprehensive plan amendment should have been processed concurrently with the rezoning. Staff believes it was an oversight. Staff is recommending the site plan be approved contingent upon an amendment to the comprehensive plan. When staff discovered this error, it was too late to publish it for this agenda, therefor, this portion of the application will appear before you at a later date. The recommendation will be to reguide the property from medium density residential to commercial. R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 6 The site design is compatible with the surrounding development. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. WETLANDS There do not appear to be wetlands on the parcel. GRADING The site has basically been prepared with the initial development. Only minor grading for the building pad and parking lot is proposed. Along the westerly side of the development there was previously a concern for screening purposes. The plans propose on grading the northwest corner of the berm to facilitate the building. The landscape plan proposes some restoration of the slope; however, the slope is fairly heavily wooded and provides a significant buffer from the residential neighborhood. The applicant should explore the use of a retaining wall on the westerly slope to minimize grading and tree loss or intensify the landscaping plan to replace the buffer being lost with grading. DRAINAGE The storm sewer system was developed with the initial phase of the development to accommodate runoff from this site. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The appropriate sewer and water hookup charges will be applied at time of building permit issuance. These hookup charges are based on the number of SAC units charged at time of building plan review. Currently, the sewer and water hookup connection charges are $1,190 and $1,555, respectively. ACCESS The site is accessed from both Trunk Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 41. Overall, the parking lot is fairly straightforward. Staff has only one recommendation that the center islands in the parking lot be curbed as well as the exterior perimeter of the parking lot. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures are being employed around the perimeter on the north and east sides. Rock construction entrances will be used until the parking lot has been paved. R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 7 PARKIN VINTERIOR CIRCULATION The City's parking ordinance for retail buildings requires 1 space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area. This site will require 48 parking spaces. The applicant is providing either 50 or 51 parking spaces since there is a discrepancy between the plans submitted, but in either case, it exceeds the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that accessible parking spaces be provided at the rate of one accessible space per every 25 spaces in the lot(s). The Site Plan (sheet AX-X) indicates a different number and layout of accessible parking stalls than the Paving and Dimensional Plan (sheet 1 of 4). The layout as shown on the Site Plan requires three eight foot wide accessible parking stalls. At least one stall must have an eight foot wide van access aisle. Other access aisles may be five feet wide. Access aisles may be shared. The layout as shown on the Paving and Dimensional Plan requires two accessible parking stalls with access aisles as described above. The raised island cannot act as an access aisle. Access to the site is proposed through one curb cut off of the shopping center parking lot located south of the subject site. LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 1,344 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 5 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along highway 7 and neighboring property lines. The applicant has met the landscape area and parking lot tree requirements. As shown on the plans, painted islands are proposed in the parking lot instead of landscaped islands. Staff supports the proposal due to the small size of the parking lot and the 9 overstory trees planted around the lot. The trees will do much better on the perimeter than in the islands. The buffer yard requirements along Highway 7 includes a total of 3 overstory, 6 understory, and 8 shrubs. Applicant has provided the minimum requirements in grouped plantings. Also included are "prairie gardens" around the perimeter of the parking lot that will add interest to the site. The ordinance states that Parking setbacks along public rights -of -way may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one - hundred percent screening is provided at least five (5) feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use offencing is not permitted. R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 8 The applicant is showing a 10 foot parking lot setback from Highway 7. The ordinance typically requires a 25 foot setback from public right -of -way. If the applicant wishes to take advantage of the 10 foot flexibility in the ordinance, then the landscaping must be increased substantially along the north elevation of the site. The current plan provides the minimum requirements of the ordinance only. Staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that the parking will be 100% screened. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plan by either increasing the landscaping to provide additional screening of the parking lot or increase the parking lot setback to 25 feet. Along the west side of the site, the applicant is extending the existing tree line into the property by planting a mix of deciduous and evergreens in a staggered groupings. This will increase the screening from the neighboring residential neighborhood and help to restore the wooded area. To ensure that grading does not impact the existing trees along the west portion of the site, the applicant must install a tree protection fence before grading on the site begins. LIGHTING Lighting locations have been illustrated on the plans, however, the type of light has not been shown. Only shielded fixtures are allowed. The applicant has submitted a plan that indicates there is no more than `/2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. SIGNAGE The applicant is showing two wall signs on the east and north elevations. The sign along the east elevation has an area of 60 square feet while the sign on the north elevation has an area of 30 square feet. Both signs meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. One issue that staff feels should be discussed relates to neon lights. During the preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding the plans, a vibrant pink neon light that raps around the building was mentioned. This neon light is not shown on the plans and staff is under the assumption that it will not be added at any time in the future. Should the applicant decide that it should be incorporated into the plans, then staff would recommend that it be limited to the east elevation only. Staff's main concern is the residential neighborhood located west of the subject site. The ordinance prohibits signage that can be viewed by a residential neighborhood. The current signage is in compliance with ordinance and staff recommends that no signage be permitted along the south and west elevations. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 24 square feet and a height of 5 feet. There are two existing pillars on the site to accommodate a R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 9 future sign, however, the applicant is not showing a ground low profile sign on the plans. Should the applicant request a sign in the future, it must meet ordinance requirements and must be located 10 feet from the property line. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Retail Building Building Height 1 story 1 story Building Setback N -35' E -15' N -35' E -140 5 -15' W -50' 5 -30' W -60' Parking stalls 48 stalls 50 stalls Parking Setback N -25' E -0' N -10 E -5' S -0' W -50' S -5' W -150' Hard surface 65% 54% Coverage Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft 1.2 acres As mentioned in the landscape portion of the report, the ordinance states that Parking setbacks along public rights -of -way may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one - hundred percent screening is provided at least five (5) feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. The applicant is showing a 10 foot parking lot setback from Highway 7. The ordinance typically requires a 25 foot setback from public right -of -way. If the applicant wishes to take advantage of the 10 foot flexibility in the ordinance, then the landscaping must be increased substantially along the north elevation of the site. The current plan provides the R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 10 minimum requirements of the ordinance only. Staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that the parking will be 100% screened. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plan by either increasing the landscaping to provide additional screening of the parking lot or increase the parking lot setback to 25 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On June 18, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application. One of the issues that was raised by Mr. Roger Gordon, attorney for the applicant dealt with the language on condition #9 requiring the applicant to provide a cross access easement. It was requested that this condition be amended to read "The applicant shall provide the City with a recorded copy of a cross access agreement or such other evidences as acceptable to staff to establish adequate ingress and egress between Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven and Forty -one Crossing." Mr. Gordon stated that there are other means of acquiring access (court order or other legal theories). Staff has no objection to amending this condition as requested by the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously acknowledged that the ingress egress issue is a private one and that the City should not get involved in it. The second issue dealt with the 5 foot high berm along Highway 7. The strip mall owner as well as Planning Commission members, were concerned that the 5 foot high berm will block views and visibility of the strip mall. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to resolve this issue. The introduction of a 3 foot high berm seemed to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, however, this does not meet ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission directed staff to review the berming to ensure it in not prohibiting a decent view of the shopping center itself. At the time of writing this update, the applicant was evaluating the options of either increasing the setback or providing a berm along Highway 7. The third issue dealt with pedestrian accessibility. The current plan is automobile oriented and does not contain any sidewalks. This site is accessible via Highway 7 and 41. A regional sidewalk is planed along the east side of Highway 41. It is conceivable that a pedestrian could cross Highway 41, walk along the front of the strip mall building to the west, then turn north and connect to the subject site. Currently, the subject site has a sidewalk along the east edge of the building. This sidewalk could be extended to the south. There is a vacant piece of land along the northwest corner of the strip mall parcel. Should this piece ever develop, staff could require the developer to provide the connecting side walk between the strip mall and the subject site. Staff is recommending the applicant extend the proposed side walk to the southerly lot line of the Video Update parcel. The fourth issue dealt with traffic circulation for the entire mall. Staff was directed review the vehicular circulation within the entire shopping center to make sure that it meets any R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 11 standards. Staff has reviewed the existing parking lot situation and believes it functions well from a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed access to Video Update could be relocated to the east side of the site across from the SuperAmerica entrance as well. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The City Council approve Site Plan Review #97 -4 as shown on the site plan received March 17, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the ordinance requirements. Brick shall be used on the base of the ground low profile sign. If a neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, it shall be limited to the east elevation only. 3. The applicant shall either provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the north perimeter of the site to provide screening of the parking lot or increase the parking setback to 25 feet. Ornamentals planted along highway 7 should be salt tolerant. Replace crabapples with Japanese tree lilac or other such salt tolerant species. To ensure that grading does not impact the existing trees along the west portion of the site, the applicant must install a tree protection fence before grading on the site begins. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, staff review the berming to ensure that it is not prohibiting a decent view of the shopping center itself. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to attachment #2 for detailed policies): a. A post indicator valve is needed on water main to building. See plan. R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 12 b. Provide an additional hydrant at entrance to parking lot. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.403. C. Fire department connection will be needed on the front of the building at time of sprinkler installation. NFPA 13 1991 A -4 -6.2.1 d. A lock -box will need to be provided on building above fire department connection. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.302. 6. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building Official's conditions: a. Revise Site Plan and/or Paving and Dimensional Plan to match. b. Revise accessible parking stalls to comply with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1340. C. Meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. d. Provide recycling space as required by Minnesota State Building Code 1300.4700. Demonstration of compliance may be provided on construction documents. 9. The applicant shall provide the City with a recorded copy of a cross access agreement or such other evidences as acceptable to staff to establish adequate ingress and egress between Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven and Forty -one Crossing. 10. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City and the Metropolitan Council approving a minor comprehensive plan amendment from residential medium density to commercial. 11. At time of building permit issuance, the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on SAC units. 12. The interior landscaped islands in the parking lot shall also have concrete curb and gutter. R & A Retail Center July 14, 1997 Page 13 13. 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. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 14. All roof top equipment shall be screened from views. 15. The applicant shall extend the proposed sidewalk to the southerly lot line of the parcel." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated June 10, 1997. 2. Memo from Greg Hayes, Fire Inspector, dated April 3, 1997. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated June 11, 1997. 4. Application. 5. Letter from Timothy Welch, dated May 7, 1997. 6. Letters from Mark Davis dated April 3, and May 15, 1997. 7. Memo from MNDOT, dated April 25, 1997. 8. Planning Commission munutes dated June 18, 1997. 9. Plan showing the layout of the 7 &41 crossing subdivision. 10. Plans received March 17, 1997. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: June 10, 1997 SUBJ: Review of Video Update Site Plan - File No. 97 -8 LUR (Lot 1, Block 1, 7/41 Crossing) Upon review of the plans prepared by James R. Hill dated March 11, 1997, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING The site has basically been prepared with the initial development. Only minor grading for the building pad and parking lot is proposed. Along the westerly side of the development there was previously a concern for screening purposes. The plans propose on grading the northwest corner of the berm to facilitate the building. The landscape plan proposes some restoration of the slope; however, the slope is fairly heavily wooded and provides a significant buffer from the residential neighborhood. The applicant should explore the use of a retaining wall on the westerly slope to minimize grading and tree loss or intensify the landscaping plan to replace the buffer being lost with grading. DRAINAGE The storm sewer system was developed with the initial phase of the development to accommodate runoff from this site. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The appropriate sewer and water hookup charges will be applied at time of building permit issuance. These hookup charges are Sharmin Al -Jaff Video Update Site Plan Review June 9, 1997 Page 2 based on the number of SAC units charged at time of building plan review. Currently, the sewer and water hookup connection charges are $1,190 and $1,555, respectively. ACCESS The site is accessed from both Trunk Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 41. Overall, the parking lot is fairly straightforward. Staff has only one recommendation that the center islands in the parking lot be curbed as well as the exterior perimeter of the parking lot. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures are being employed around the perimeter on the north and east sides. Rock construction entrances will be used until the parking lot has been paved. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. At time of building permit issuance the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on SAC units. 2. The interior landscaped islands in the parking lot shall also have concrete curb and gutter. ktm c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Greg Hayes, Fire Inspector DATE: April 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Planning Case 97 -4 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan review 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 post indicator valve is needed on water main to building. See plan. 2. Provide an additional hydrant at entrance to parking lot. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.403. 3. Fire department connection will be needed on the front of the building at time of sprinkler installation. NFPA 13 1991 A -4 -6.2.1 4. A lockbox will need to be provided on building above fire department connection. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.302. Enclosed are Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policies. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 937 -1900 ext. 262. GH/be gAsafety \gh \p1rev974 MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSE-K- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 1. Permits are required for all sprinkler work. 2. A minimum of four sets of plans are required. Send, or drop off plans and specifications and calculationsto: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 3. Yard post indicators are required and must have tamper protection. 4. , All control values must be provided with tamper protection. 5. All systems tests must be witnessed b; the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Appointments can be made by calling the Fire Marshal at 937 -1900, ext. 132, between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Frida}' least 24 hours in advance. All revisions . Please try to arrange tests at of 25 heads or more will require a test. 6. Main drains & inspector test connections must be piped to the outside atmosphere. 7. Water may not be introduced into sprinkler piping from the City main until the Fire Marshal witnesses a flush test per NFPA 13- 8 -2.1. 8. The City of Chanhassen has adopted Appendix E (see 1305.6905 appendix chapter 3S of the NNIBC). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy #40 -1995 Date: 01/12/95 Revised: 03/12/97 Page 1 of 2 9. All systems must be designed to NFPA -13, 1991 edition and Chapter 6 Standards. All attic systems are to be spaced at a maximum 130 square foot coverage. 3/4" plastic piping will not be allowed at any time in attic space. 10. All equipment installed in a fire protection system shall be UL listed or factory mutual approved for fire protection service. 11. Fire, protection systems that are hydraulically calculated shall have a 5 psi safety factor at maximum system flow. 12. Acceptable water supplies for fire sprinkler systems are listed in NFPA -13, 1991 ed., Chapter 7. Swimming pools and ponds are not acceptable primary water supplies. 13. Pressure and gravity tanks shall be sized per the requirements contained in NFPA -13 and 22. Duration of the water supply shall match the hazard classification of the occupancy. 14. Include spec sheets for fire sprinkler heads - dry pipe /pre- actionvalving. 15. The definition of inspection is contained in MNI Rule 7512.0100 Subpart 10, and states that inspection means: 1. Conducting a final acceptance test. 2. Trip test of dry pipe, deluge or preaction valves. 3. A test that an authority having jurisdiction requires to be conducted under the supervision of a contractor. Only licensed fire protection contractors are permitted to conduct these tests. 4. All other inspections including the inspectors test, main drain and other valves are permitted under MN Rule 7512.0400 Subpart -2G, as maintenance activities and do not require a license as a fire protection contractor. 16. Per Section 904.3.2. and the 1994 Uniform Building Code, an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of the building in a normally occupied location. (Location must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal). 17. In existing systems, the following shall apply: 1. If any changes in the hydraulically most demanding area, or an addition of 20 or more heads, hydraulic calculations will need to be provided. 2. If an addition or chance of 20 or more heads to a system, a test will need to be completed. pproved- Public Safety Director Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy 4 140 -1995 Date: 01/12/95 Revised: 03/12/97 Pace: 2 of 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN General 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION 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. F . Other Requirements - General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color froiWthe background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additiona '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 dweMnq untt� 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall'be 12 ". 2. Strip Mails a. Multi tenant building will have minlmum 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 dlrectory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Approved - Public Safety Director Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992 Date: 06 /15/92 Revised: Page 1 of.l 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE -PLAN Prior to issuing the C.O., a pre -plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. The following items shall be shown on the plan. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)- 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) Size 11" x 17" (maximum) Building footprint and building dimensions Fire lanes and width of fire lanes Water mains and their sizes, indicate Fire hydrant locations P.I.V. - Fire Department connection Gas meter (shut -off), NSP (shut off) Lock box location Fire walls, if applicable Roof vents, if applicable Interior walls Exterior doors Location of fire alarm panel Sprinkler riser location Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable Haz. Mat. storage, if applicable Underground storage tanks locations, Type of construction walls /roof Standpipes looped or dead end if applicable PLEASE NOTE: Plans with topographical information, contour lines, easement lines, property lines, setbacks, right -of -way lines, headings, and other related lines or markings, are not acceptable, and will be rejected. Approved - PurDlic Safety Director Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991 Date: 01/16/91 Revised: 02/18/94 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 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 ". 2. Red on white is preferred. 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade 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 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 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 If #1 00 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CI3AN8ASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY EXTERIOR LIGHT AND HORN OVER FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRINKLER CONNECTION 1) Exterior Light and Horn for indicating Fire Department Sprinkler Connection shall be: a. Simplex model number Horn - 31T -115 -R Light - WH3T- 115 -FR or Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention f Policy: #02 -1990 Date: 09/04/90 G�. Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 �rs- # 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 * CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 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 gas 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"xx 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). $. 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 silage 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). 112 �z�_ Approved - Public Safety Director Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Page 2 of 2 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 97 • 7610 Laredo Drive • Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bus. Phone 934 -9191 • Minnewashta Station No. 2 • Phone 474 -7094 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY Labeling Fire Rated Walls General Numbers and/or letters shall be placed on all rated fire walls identifying their rating. Said numbers and/or letters shall be not less than 5 inches high x 3 inches wide, with a minimum '/s inch stroke and shall contrast with the background. Requirements are for new and existing construction. Occupancy Requirements This policy is in effect for all occupancies except Group R -3. Other Requirements 1. Identification shall be marked 10 feet from every corner or change of direction and every 30 feet thereafter. Identification shall be on both sides of interior walls. ?. Identification can be hidden from plain view, i.e., above ceiling tiles or in attic spaces. All other locations must be approved by one of the following: Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, Building Official. or Building Inspector. Example 1 hr (1 hour fire wall) Approved - Public Safety Director Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy =r4+-1997 Date: 01/08/97 Revised: Page 1 of I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official r\ ` , v DATE: June 11, 1997 SUBJECT: 94 -4 SPR (R & A Retail Center, Mark A. Davis and Associates) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY of CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 17 19 9 7 , CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT for the above referenced project. Analysis: Accessible Parking. The Site Plan (sheet AX.X) indicates a different number and layout of accessible parking stalls than the Paving and Dimensional Plan (sheet lof 4). The layout as shown on the Site Plan requires three eight foot wide accessible parking stalls. At least one stall must have a eight foot wide van access aisle Other access aisles may be five feet wide. Access aisles may be shared. The layout as shown on the Paving and Dimensional Plan requires two accessible parking stalls with access aisles as described above. The raised island cannot act as an access aisle. - Recommendation: 1. Revise Site Plan and/or Paving and Dimensional Plan to match. 2. Revise accessible parking stalls to comply with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1340. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. gAsafety\sak\memos \plan \video l CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION NA,L l,. DRv Is APPLICANT: Gtr �c4 f ADDRESS: Q C' f #/1 ADDRESS: SJR riS4D< ty) f s /M te Sligo 2 1 NN�� ��, M o ss3y TELEPHONE (Day time) :3 3 Q L/ d TELEPHONE: �� ©I °1 / Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non - conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Vacation of ROW /Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit _ Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review _ )�_ Notification Sign t / S 0 ' Site Plan Review' s-3-5-C).00 Subdivision* X EscroW for Filin ees /Attorney cost ** 50 UP VACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ' 5o " m A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. `Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8' /z' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. iOJECT NAME )CATION 14W V 7 � )TAL ACREAGE /. a O acres C 5a, o q TLANDS PRESENT YES NO IESENT ZONING :QUESTED ZONING I V IESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Cn m me — r C t G l ,QUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION C n M m F_ rr 1 al ASON FOR THIS REQUEST s application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information i plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning partment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. letermination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written ice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. s is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with amity requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either y of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make application and the fee owner has also signed this application. ill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further lerstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any horization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of knowledge. city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing uirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day ;nsion for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review :nsions are approved by7the applLcant� / 3 - /�- -9 nature Appli t Date -7 3 N — q / nature of Fee Owner Date )lication Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. iot contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING State Hwy 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 18, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive SUBJECT: Site Plan Review for a 9,680 sq. ft. Multi- Tenant Building including a Video Update APPLICANT: Mark A. Davis and Associates LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Hwy. 7 and Hwy. 41 - -Lot 1, Block 1, Seven Forty -one Crossing NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Mark A. Davis & Associates, is requesting site plan review for a multi- tenant building with Video Update as a major tenant located Nocated at Business District, on t corner of the 1, Block 1, Seven and Forty -one Crossing Center and intersection of Hwy. 7 and Hwy. 41. 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 Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext. 120. 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 June 5, 1997. , ON RUBENSTEIN ETAL C/O AMERICA GROUP INC , EPT PO BOX 14000 fGTON, KY 40512 1 CROSSINGS CENTER LTD WAYZATA BLVD SUITE 620 APOLIS, MN 55416 GARY G & JANET REED 2461 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8809 FORTY ONE PARTNERSHIP C/O R N BRISTOL LN TONKA, MN 55343 4307 TH D REUTIMAN GALPIN LAKE RD WOOD, MN 55331 3105 SHAWN P & JOANNE K KILLIAN 2449 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8809 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O CITY TREASURER 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0147 R & MARJORIE M WOOSLEY CHARLES E ROR INC :ORRINE WOOSLEY 2461 64TH ST W HAMILTON RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8809 PONKA, MN 55343 2 & MARJORIE M WOOSLEY CHARLES E ROR INC :ORRINE..WOOSLEY 2461 64T SST W M CbNKA, MN 55343 7AMILTO RD EXC OR, MN 55331 8809 BATESON )RIbLE AVE >IOR, MN 55331 7809 SHAWN P &:JOANNE K KILLIAN 2449 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8809 3ERNADETTE MAJERES )RIOLE AVE >IOR, MN 55331 7808 ANDERSON )RIOLE AVE IOR, MN 55331 7808 NANCY JO PERKINS 2448 64TH ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8808 'AMES & KELLY LEE HANCE ORIOLE AVE 'IOR, MN 55331 7808 LAW OFFICES LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD 9 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION HAROLD D. FIELD, JR. ROBERT J. HUBER ALLEN I. SAEKS DAVID KANTOR THOMAS D. FEINBERG JOHN M. SHERAN SUITE 2300 MORRIS M. SHERMAN BARBARA L. PORTWOOD GEORGE REILLY ANGELA M. CHRISTY 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET CHARLES K. DAYTON MARK A. LINDGREN STEPHEN R. PFLAUM MARIANA R. SHULSTAD - MINNESOTA 55402 CHARLES A. MAYS LOWELL V. STORTZ MINNEAPOLIS, LOWELL J. NOTEBOOM DOUGLAS B. GREENSWAG GEORGE F. MCGUNNIGLE ELLEN G. SAMPSON TELEPHONE (612) 335 -1500 JOHN E. REGAN JOHN T. ROBERTS RICHARD G. PEPIN, JR. ROSANNE NATHANSON FACSIMILE (612) 335 -1657 SYRON E. STARNS MICHAEL G. TAYLOR STEVEN M. RUBIN JOHN W. GETSINGER JOHN H. HERMAN THOMAS P. SANDERS STEVEN O. DERUYTER ROBERT ZEGLOVITCH JAMES R. DORSEY TIMOTHY WELCH SUITE 2270 STEPHEN J. DAVIDSON GREGG J. CAVANAGH STEPHEN R. LITMAN SUSAN M. ROBINER WORLD TRADE CENTER EDWARD M. MOERSFELDER BRADLEY J. GUNN MINNESOTA ROBERT LEWIS BARROWS BLAKE SHEPARD, JR. RICHARD J. WEGENER NANCY A. WILTGEN 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET DANIEL J. MCINERNEY, JR. WILLIAM L. GREENE HUGH M. MAYNARD STEVEN L. BELTON ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 FREDERICK W. MORRIS MARC D. SIMPSON JOHN C. KUEHN SHAUN C. MCELHATTON (612)222 -7455 BRADLEY J. GILLAN JAMES J. BERTRAND TELEPHONE MICHAEL A. NEKICH DAVID R. MELLOH (612) 222 -7644 MARTHA C. BRAND CAROLYN V. WOLSKI FACSIMILE DAVID N. HAYNES STEVEN R. LINDEMANN RICHARD H. MARTIN WILLIAM H. KOCH ROBYN HANSEN RONALD J. SCHULTZ ROBERT L. DEMAY A M BOHMANN ELLEN G. LUGER JERRY S. PODKOPACZ May 7, 1997 ANGEL TIMOTHY J. PABST WILLIAM H. GOTLIEB ROBERT P. THAVIS JAMA M. KRIZ JAMES G. BULLARD WENDY C. SKJERVEN JOSEPH M. FINLEY ROBERT H. TORGERSON LAWRENCE J. FIELD JAMES F. VOEGELI DAVID W. KELLEY TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON - MARK S. WEITZ City of Chanhassen VIA MESSENGER 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention: Planning Commission (Sharmin) Re: Application of Mark A. Davis & Associates for site plan review for the Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Highway 41 (Lot 1, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing) Our Clients: 7 & 41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership; Brian E. Pellowski Dear Members: I represent the above - referenced 7 & 41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership, owner of Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossings. Our client is opposed to the construction of the proposed 9,680 multi -tenant building, including a Video Update store, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed building is too large for the site, which will result in greatly increased traffic in the area and inadequate parking on the site. 2. There is inadequate access to the site for the proposed use. Our client, as owner of Block 2, has an easement agreement with the owner of Lot 3, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing (the Super America tract), providing for access to the Super America tract over our client's property. The easement agreement does not allow access to Lot 1 over either our client's property or the Super America tract. DEBRA G. STREHLOW THOMAS J. CONLEY JOSHUA J. KANASSATEGA JANN M. EICHLERSMITH ANDREW P. LEE I. DANIEL COLTON NICOLE A. ENGISCH TAMMIE S. PTACEK MICHAEL J. WURZER JEFFREY E. GRELL BARBARA PODLUCKY BERENS KEITH S. MOHEBAN ALAN W. VAN DELLEN JANE F. GODFREY ERIC H. GALATZ ROSANNE JACUZZI DANIEL L. PALMOUIST CATHERINE A. MCENROE JOHN E. KING DANIEL OBERDORFER JEFFREY A. EYRES SUSAN S. FAUVER HANSI.E.BJORNSON KATHLEEN L. KUEHL STEVEN P. ZABEL DAVID R. CROSBY JEANNE M. COCHRAN MICHAEL A.G. KORENGOLD THAD J. COLLINS ELIZABETH A. CUMMING TODD A. NOTESOOM DAVID H. SAMPSELL BRIAN S. FELTON GREGORY R. FITZHARRIS PAUL A. VANDER VORT ROBERT L. STRIKER TIMOTHY P. GLYNN VALERIE G. BLATNIK -SIGEL SUSAN M. HUMISTON SUSAN THOMPSON RACHELE.JOHNSON JILL HUTCHINSON BOLLETTIERI ROBERT M. HOGG JAMES L. HEINE THOMAS C. SNOOK GEORGE B. LEONARD 11872-19561 ARTHUR L.H. STREET (1877.1961) B E NEDICT DEINARD (1899 -1969) AMOS S. DEINARD (1898.1988) SIDNEY LORBER SIDNEY BARROWS DAVID G. BARATTI BARRY McGRATH LARRY D. STARNS OF COOHSEL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (612) 335 -1729 1531098 City of Chanhassen May 6, 1997 Page 2 Our client will not give permission to the owners of Lot 1 for either access across our client's property or shared parking. The easement between our client's tract and the Super America tract benefits both tracts. There is no benefit to our client in entering into any easement or parking agreement with the owners of Lot 1. Of course, any requirement by the City of Chanhassen to provide parking or access across our client's property would be a taking and subject to compensation by the City. While we do not believe this is currently contemplated, we want to be sure that you understand our client's position. Lot 1 is appropriate for development of a building of modest size and minimal ingress and egress, not the current proposal. For your review, I have enclosed a copy of the current easement agreement between Lot 2 and Lot 3. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Brian Pellowski (591- 2260). Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, LEON AAR STREET AND DEINARD B Timothy Welch TW /lms Encl. cc: Brian Pellowski 1531098 04/03/97 11:54 a 341 3529 M. RAVIS &ASSOC. F.02 MARK A. DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.I April S, 1997 Ms. Sharmin A1'Jaff City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN Dear Sharmin: Please delay the processing of our application for the development of a new retail building on the site adjacent to the Super America at Highway 7 and Highway 41. 1 will contact you shortly when we are ready to proceed. Sincerely, Mark A. Davis Fosh-1)"16 wo, Stlitc 1111 821 Xlarquct v Avcrntc t`4inrrcii c lis, Milillo- ,t;, 554(V fill.. •541. T) V 05/15/97 11:17 $ 341 3529 M. DAVIS &ASSOC. P.02 May 15, 1997 Ms. Sharmin A1'Jaff City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN Dear Sharminr Please process our application for development of the new retail building at Hwy. 7 and Hwy. 41 at this time. Due to our requested time delay, we hereby waive the 120 day time limit for processing the application and agree to extend the time by 60 days. Sincerely, c C.GG Mark A. Davis )TIntuuc Real lisrailr Snvicv.s Kl)ay 1n1vel. ;wife 1111 A Ma:yne(ty AvoiniP 'capolis, Minnesota 55401 ;W , � Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 April 25, 1997 Sharmin Al -Jaff City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sharmin Al -Jaff: SUBJECT: Video Update -741 Crossing Site Plan Review 597 -029 Southwest Quadrant of Trunk Highway (TIT) 7 and TH 41 Chanhassen, Carver County CS 1004 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Video Update -741 Crossing site plan. We find the site plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. Please identify Mn/DOT right of way on all future plans. The site should maintain existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff. Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden of our Permits Section may be contacted at 582 -1443 for further information regarding the permit process. Please contact me at 582 -1654 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison An equal opportunity employer Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 d. Provide recycling space as required by Minnesota State Building Code 1300.4700. Demonstration of compliance may be provided on construction documents. 16. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon parking requirements being met. The current plan is deficient 27 parking spaces. The spaces may be accommodated off site in a location agreeable to both the City and the Bank." All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 9,680 SO. FT. MULTI - TENANT BUILDING WITH THE MAJOR TENANT BEING VIDEO UPDATE ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 1 BLOCK 1, SEVEN AND FORTY -ONE CROSSING, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND 41, R & A RETAIL CENTER, MARK A. DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Davis 2333 Sheridan Terrace, Wayzata, MN 55391 Richard Heise 188 View Road, Mahtomedi, MN 55115 Roger Gordon 6508 Parkwood Road, Edina, MN 55436 Jennifer Greene, Welsh Companies Inc. 8200 Normandale Blvd, #200, Mpls, MN 55437 Brian Pellowski, PBK Investments 5500 Wayzata Blvd, Golden Valley, MN 55416 Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Conrad: Yeah. Do you have a bigger, I see the site plan. I'd like to see the context that it fits into and I didn't see that. Was it in our, I didn't see it. That's it. Yeah. That's not. I'd like to see how it fits in the shopping center and the traffic flow. Al -Jaff: I will go get it. Peterson: Other questions that Kate may be able to answer. Other questions of staff. Maybe one for Sharmin too Kate but, as I look at the west elevation. Primarily the west at least and it's what we consider the back of the building. There's a large area without a lot going on that's pretty high visibility. A look at the landscaping plan and I'm trying to balance what's in the landscaping plan versus this huge brick wall that people are going to see. Predominantly, I assume the west elevation would really be seen coming from the west on Highway 7, right? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Aanenson: Right. And also there was a condition increasing the parking lot landscaping too. It did... some of that. Peterson: That wouldn't be in the west side though would it? It goes back to the Kinko building. That one keeps rearing it's ugly head again but we didn't do a good job on that. Aanenson: Right. And I think that can be addressed by putting additional landscaping just off on that side. Peterson: From an architectural standpoint, maybe I'll let the applicant discuss that because I haven't got a good feel for what the upper area of the building and what that is and how it's going to make the rest of the building feel. Whether it's cold or not. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just interject. The westerly portion of the building does have a large berm as you go up that is pretty heavily vegetated. They are proposing to cut in the northwest corner of that berm to fit the building and disturb the vegetation there but there's a pretty significant hill there on the westerly side. Peterson: How much of the building would you be able to see from TH 7? Just guess. Hempel: Just probably the northwesterly corner of the building back probably half of the building. Peterson: Good, that's helpful. Conrad: So the TH 7 traffic is coming in where? It's coming at the SuperAmerica site. Okay. Hempel: A one way. Aanenson: Back out onto TH 41. This was the concern you were talking about ... back side? Peterson: Well on the west side too. Right there, and then Dave said there's the berm. Ladd, does that give you the right feel? Conrad: So Dave the parking comes in, the traffic comes in from TH 7 and swings, it goes south between the two sites. And then we swing west and then north... Aanenson: You go westbound on TH 7. Peterson: East or westbound? Both. Hempel: Yeah, get back onto Highway 7 at that north drive aisle is a one way. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Conrad: What kind of structure for the exiting do we have? We're kind of going through the parking lot. I've actually gone into there. I've been there but I didn't, is it a typical parking lot that you're driving through? Does it have any kind of curbing? Hempel: It does have curbing around the perimeter of the drive aisles in the parking lot itself do not believe there is any islands in the existing parking lot installed to protect the turning movements through there. Conrad: This is the way SuperAmerica traffic exits. Aanenson: Yeah. You slip in and then you come back out onto TH 41. Conrad: And why did we let that happen again? Hempel: I believe the State had some play in that. Peterson: I'd be willing to bet you that 5% of the traffic that makes that first turn is thinking they're going on TH 41 like I've done about a half a dozen times. It's good for the businesses because well I'm here. I might as well stop and get something, you know. Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward please. Richard Heise: My name is Richard Heise and I'm President of HRMA, a St. Paul based architectural firm. I live at 188 View Road, Mahtomedi, Minnesota. And the presentation this evening, my portion of the presentation is going to be quite simple. You're familiar with the site plan I think so I think what I'd really like to speak about is the exterior of the building. The exterior of the building is designed in such a way that it allows future changes to the building. I think that that's very important that when we first were approached by Video Update, we had been given a prototypical building and the prototypical building had fins and horns and all kinds of things to it and through discussions with the client we came back to a relatively classical building. And when I say that, what you see in front of you is a building that has a protruding area in the front centered on the building. It also has some very, very nice brick detailing to it. The upper portion of the building has soldier courses. As you come down the side band there's an additional soldier course above the sign band. And then the windows are held in place with a painted steel beam. Now this is very similar to the existing building that's on the site that are firm also designed. We're proposing the same face brick that was done on the existing building. We're also, instead of using painted split face rock, using painted split face concrete block. Boy, that's a lot of words there. We are proposing using a decorative rock face block and as was indicated in the staff report, basically one, I'm trying to give you some sort of a percentage. I'd say 35 -40% of the building is clad and face brick. Where the windows exist. Around the corners we have the decorative block and brick banding. We're proposing and endicote brick which is a very fine face brick. It has steel spots to it. It's a dark burgundy in color. Natural grout and we would be using black window trim so it's very understated and the sides of the building then and the rear of the building would be in a natural rock face block. All of it would be done in a natural mortar so there's a contrast. If this doesn't fall down. The lower left hand corner would be the 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 companion colored rock face block with the endicote brick and we would use natural mortar so the endicote brick looked more defined. Also as per staff request what we've done is we've created pilasters on the building, or little bump outs at each corner which give a shade and shadow kind of relief to what could be a very severe looking building if it didn't have it. So if you could follow my fingers I'll show you where these little protrusions are which give it a nice sense of relief. Here ... and here. So as you walk around the building it doesn't have the appearance of just being a concrete block building. It's held in place with four corners that are protruding out 4 inches. And we're screening all the mechanical equipment. And we have, as you've seen, a fairly significant planting plan. The other thing, we agree with the majority of the comments in the report. We would however like to discuss a couple of them, or actually four of them. Five of them in particular. The first one, the 10 foot setback off of Highway 7. We will in fact do a landscape plan and a serpentine type of berm condition and additional plantings to comply with your request. The curbs on the islands in the parking lot where you're requesting island curbs. Because of the size of the parking lot and the snowplowing capabilities, we elected not to curb the islands. It's been our experience in a parking lot of this size that the snowplow, if there are any cars, and there is a terribly difficult time maneuvering around such islands. So that was the reason in which we, certainly not to save money because it's not significant. It was more to do a better job of handling the snow. We will definitely add an additional handicap stall required by the zoning ordinance to have 48 stalls. We're showing 50 so we'll have no difficulty whatsoever getting an additional handicap stall. As far as the trash enclosure is concerned, because of where it's located against the building we have chosen the rock face block in lieu of the face brick simply because the face brick will show up as a dark spot against the natural rock face block and I think that you will see the trash enclosure a lot less if we were to use the rock face block in lieu of the face brick. Not a big issue but that's how we see it architecturally. Otherwise I think I'm going to turn it over to Mark. Peterson: Before you move on you mentioned. Richard Heise: I'm sorry. I should have said do you have any questions. Peterson: Well I got you here anyway. You said not curbing the islands. Are you saying that you're going to get rid of the islands themselves or just not curb them? Richard Heise: No. What we would do is we would have striped islands in lieu of actual islands. If we put landscaped islands out there without curbing, they would, you know they just die so our proposal was based on just the efficiency of basically, because of the size of the parking lot and the fact that snowplowing will be difficult. You know it really becomes the plowers issue, not ours so much but we see them get destroyed so much in the confines of a parking lot of that size. Peterson: Does staff want to comment on that and your perspective on it. Aanenson: It's city ordinance. Sharmin Al -Jaff made a comment that was not picked up by the microphone. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Richard Heise: Well we said that we'd do it. It's not practical but we'll do it. Any other questions? Thank you. Roger Gordon: Actually I'm going to say a few words if I could. I'm Roger Gordon. Richard Heise: Oh I'm sorry Roger. Roger Gordon: Yeah, that's okay. I'm the attorney for the applicant and we've worked with the applicant on the Video Update lease and most recently we've been working with the applicant on this easement issue on the ingress and egress and I know that's a condition of the approval and I certainly agree with that. As staff has pointed out, that's really an issue between the two landowners to work out and not an issue for the City to get involved with, other than to make sure that before the development starts you have assurances that there is adequate ingress and egress. Obviously we believe we have adequate ingress and egress already by the existing documents that are of record. The adjacent landowner and their attorney don't agree and that's something we simply have to work out between us. The only technical point I would make on the recommendation is, we would like to be able to satisfy that requirement, not necessarily by a recorded easement. It may come another way. We could very well get a court order indicating that we already have ingress and egress, either by an existing document. There are other legal theories that provide ingress and egress in this situation. Obviously the site was subdivided with every intention of the parties at that time to have ingress and egress and the Courts recognize that sort of thing so what, again it's just a technical point. If we could just add in there or such other evidences as acceptable to staff to establish adequate ingress and egress. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Mark Davis: Mark Davis, 2333 Sheridan Terrace, Wayzata. I'm the project manager, developer for the project. I think we've kind of gone through it and I'll answer any questions if you have anything further. Peterson: Questions? Mark Davis: Thank you very much. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to do so and a second please. Skubic moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Council or Planning Commission, please come forward now. Brian Pellowski: I'm Brian Pellowski. My address is 5500 Wayzata Boulevard in Golden Valley. I'm the adjacent owner of the mall. I have a number of real concerns with this project. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 One of which, berming the north part only blocks my center more already than it is. Have SuperAmerica on one corner. Now we're going to put a building up there and then you're going to put a 5 foot berm. That will detract from the ability of myself to market the property to perspective tenants as well as taking away the value of the building, which as the City of Chanhassen knows. If the value of the building goes down, I'm going to be appealing for a reduction in taxes. Also on that corner property where the staff eluded to there's a play yard there for the daycare. The daycare is no longer a tenant in the building. That piece of property in the plan is zoned to put in approximately 6,000 square feet of additional retail, office. Whatever we chose. That was in the original plan. The problem with putting a building up there and if I wish to utilize and put a building in that space, the value of that parcel is diminished immensely. Plus it will be choppy all the way through. The other point that is of paramount interest is the amount of extra traffic coming in. I think putting a 9600 plus square feet of space into that area is a real parking issue. It's not only a easement issue. It's a matter of who's going to police the parking. I mean 50 stalls, right now Video Update on Tuesdays. By the way Video Update is currently a tenant in my building. Their lease runs till January of '99. They have a clause in their lease that they can't go dark, which means basically they have to be open and if they wish to go into another spot, they have to maintain both locations. The situation, when they have their Tuesday video sale, their number of cars in there are much more than 30 or 40 cars. We've got, I don't know what the other uses in the space are. There's 6,000 feet plus you know 3,600 feet of additional. No one knows what that tenants are but if it were to be a coffee shop or a bagel shop, which would be considered a restaurant type, you've got more parking problems which means they're going to use my parking lot. Currently I have, in my parking lot I have a 8.24 cars per thousand. And what they're proposing is, if they use the 10 feet they can get 50 cars. If they've got the 25 feet which would make more sense, the number of cars they can get in there is significantly less which means the square footage would have to go down, which impacts their development. I'm in the business of development. I understand it. I've been in it for 17 years. Mr. Gordon alluded to the fact of their thought process on this easement issue. I think for the City to compromise my position and give them an ability to use other issues other than us going through the Court system, puts the City in jeopardy of having a lawsuit. I did not bring my attorney. My attorney has written a letter to the City addressing our concerns and we will proceed on all avenues if their choice is to proceed with the City on that issue. I've made proposals to the applicants to buy the parcel. I've made proposals to give them an easement and on both cases, because their feeling is it wasn't what they wanted, have not responded. My stance at this time is to basically ask the City that this project be tabled until something can be worked out between the parties and do further due diligence into the traffic concerns I have going across my parking onto TH 7 and you know onto TH 41 basically is the only ingress and egress in that parcel. Thank you. Peterson: One question for you. What was your assumption for the property as far as the potential development of it prior to coming forward? Brian Pellowski: I bought the property in 1993 from Park National Bank. The people who owned all three parcels here, they sold the site to SuperAmerica. They kept and developed the site which I purchased, which is the existing center. They happen to be the people who also own 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 the outlot that they're proposing to put the Video Update in. I think for them to say that they sold the properties and they don't know what they're doing, I don't think it's a fair assumption. Peterson: Well my question was more direct though is what was your assumption of that outlot at the time that you purchased? Brian Pellowski: Other than it was for sale at $6.00 a square foot. Peterson: But you knew there was the potential of something, something was probably going to go in there. ' Brian Pellowski: I realized there was potential for something but when I purchased the property my full intent was that if there was something to be developed on that parcel, they would have to come and deal with me from an easement standpoint. And from a cross easement standpoint utilizing my parking as well. Peterson: Thank you. Brian Pellowski: Thanks. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Brooks moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you. Public.hearing is now closed. Comments from commissioners. Alison, do you want to take a stab at this one? Blackowiak: Okay. Well I think that there are, I guess maybe three issues that I can really see. First of all it would be the traffic issue. Whether or not the existing or the proposed plan can deal effectively with traffic. It seems that the entrance off of Highway 7 is fairly straight forward. It seems as the exit onto Highway 41 is fairly straight forward. It's just the getting from Point A to Point B that's going to be a problem so I guess I don't feel my job is to resolve that problem but I realize it's there. The second problem potentially I guess is parking. I don't know how many stalls are required of this type of tenant but I'm assuming that it meets city codes and in that respect we have to assume that our codes are adequate and will meet the needs of the tenant. I guess the third issue is really how the owners of the property are going to deal with it and I really don't feel that as a commissioner it's my job to dictate how they have to come to an agreement but I think that they need to come to some sort of an agreement before I would feel comfortable moving forward with this. That's it. Peterson: LuAnn. K9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Aanenson: Three to five. We can work. That's the intent. Conrad: I really want to be sensitive to the shopping center behind there. There's just absolutely no reason not to be. I think that's important. I hope the applicant saw the staff report which talked about the neon sign on the west and south. That was not in the staff recommendations. It was in the staff report. I think that's real important for you to recognize that we've gone through so many neighborhood meetings that that was real important to the neighbors from a historic standpoint. I still have a problem with the traffic flow. I guess I have, but Bob your comment is interesting. You find the traffic flow to be okay in this parking lot. It's not a Market Square situation. Skubic: No. Conrad: That's good. I'll buy your perception. It just worries me that we have meandering traffic patterns here when we don't really have a very good plan for egress. It's just not what you like to see. The only other comment, and maybe it's back to staff and not to the applicant is, we really, we don't have connectivity again in this site, which we talk about occasionally. Sidewalks and stuff like that. You know we've got, this is street. This is car stuff. Now you didn't talk about it and I'm not going to be, I don't know. You didn't talk about it in the staff report so I guess your assumption is we really don't need it here. Aanenson: Well I think it'd be nice. Trying to get the road access. That would be nice to be able to walk... Conrad: Yeah. It's a real contradiction to what we call good planning in a shopping center and we've got a conflict between owners you know. And even if we didn't have a conflict, we'd have problems getting things connected. I don't know. That bothers me. It just, and I guess from the standpoint of just having staff tell me, let's not worry about it. Or that we can't accomplish much with connecting the video store to SuperAmerica to the shopping center you know. Aanenson: How about this? If we commit to looking at it. Conrad: That's okay with me. Yeah, I'd like you to do that Kate. I guess yeah. I think that's important. Again, the whole reason I asked for the whole site is just to look at these things. When it comes in in a partial and you just look at the site plan, you don't look at the big picture and again we're looking, we were looking at a snap shot and if you look at the bigger picture and again Bob, I respect you. That's real interesting that you like the traffic flow through. You get a lot more cars now going through there without really concrete direction so I guess staff looks at that. I don't know that I want it back. IF somebody else feels uncomfortable, you could bring her back. Peterson: Allyson. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 Brooks: Well I'll just follow everyone else and say that I'm not comfortable with the traffic pattern either. It just seems like it is meandering a little bit and as for the dispute between the owners, I have no comment on that. I do agree with Ladd too, that we should keep the berm low. Lower so that people can see the mall so they know it's there. Those are my comments. Peterson: Thank you. My comments are not dissimilar. I guess I'd in beg to differ with Bob a little bit. I found that traffic flow in there to be confusing. Perhaps it was because of my anger at thinking it was TH 41 that I was turning off onto but ... whether it be for gas or stopping for a video or whatever. I think now is the time, if there is any confusion, take a look at it again and see if we scan address some of the flow better. I mean I doubt that we can in looking at it by better minds than mine. Nobody's really discussed the architectural design. I think that generally means that it'd liked and I too like it. My only concern is it is a pretty basic design without a lot of character and definition. I shouldn't say a lot. It has some. It's just a matter of we're putting up another standard style building. I know to change from the standard increases the cost and that makes it prohibitive, but it does, the reason why I'm acquiescing, it does match the current standards that are set out there so I just wanted a conversational point or for future reference I guess. Really what describes, be a little bit more creative on the architectural lines... Those are my comments. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Conrad: I'm going to make a motion Mr. Chair but I'm going to, do you want to see this back as the Chairman? You know Kate volunteered to do some work and move it onto the City Council. Peterson: What do you feel Kate. Join in on this. What do you feel that we can gain if we see it again? I mean what questions will we, as a commission, be able to have answered if it comes back again. Aanenson: The issues that we looked at, that Sharmin examined was, we talked about the pedestrian. Right now TH 41's not a four way, and either is Highway 7 at that intersection. Someday it will be four lanes. We don't know the time frame on that but right now it's probably more ... to get, but that doesn't mean we still can't have internal ... as we're getting more development on TH 41. We feel in looking at the architecture that it's blending in with the center. It seems consistent. We certainly can appreciate... We believe the breaks in the lines and the use of materials... As far as the issues between the property owners, we believe that they can solve that problem but... something to us that says that they have access to the property. That's an issue whatever they resolve... I'm not sure exactly what, we can certainly try to look at pedestrian internal access. I'm not sure, this whole center was approved. It meets the parking standards. You meets all the criteria. I'm not sure exactly what we could examine further. Peterson: I think with that I can't, Ladd unless you see something that we can get back, I don't think there's any... Conrad: Yeah, I'm comfortable sending it on but yeah. I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97 -4 as shown on the site plan received March 17, 1997, subject to the conditions of the staff report dated June 18` with the following modifications or alterations. In point number 3, that the staff would review the berming to 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 ensure that it's not prohibiting a decent view of the shopping center itself. All the other points stand. Point number 15, and that would be to have staff review the pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the entire shopping center to make sure that it meets any requirements that we believe is important for a shopping center to have based on today's standards. Peterson: Any second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad: Yeah just discussion. Dave, I don't know what control we have but my experience when I've been over there has been like Craig's. It's typical going through a parking lot scenario which makes me real uncomfortable. It's like, it's not, we're now putting in another store and we do have more traffic and it's like it's not an identifiable, at least it wasn't to me and I don't know. Maybe it was the wintertime but it wasn't an identifiable exit and I'm moving all over the place. It's a real bad, it's real bad and so I don't know if we have any control over it right now but that's what I would expect from you and the analysis to recommend to the City what, if we have any control, let's do it. If we have none, we're out of it. That's okay. Peterson: Other discussion? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #97 -4 as shown on the site plan received March 17, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the ordinance requirements. Brick shall be used on the base of the ground low profile sign. If a neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, it shall be limited to the east elevation only. 3. The applicant shall either provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the north perimeter of the site to provide screening of the parking lot or increase the parking setback to 25 feet. Ornamentals planted along highway 7 should be salt tolerant. Replace crabapples with Japanese tree lilac or other such salt tolerant species. To ensure that grading does not impact the existing trees along the west portion of the site, the applicant must install a tree protection fence before grading on the site begins. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to issuance of a building permit. Also that the staff would review the berming to ensure that it's not prohibiting a decent view of the shopping center itself. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 4. The applicant shall enter into a site.plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to attachment #2 for detailed policies): a. A post indicator valve is needed on water main to building. See plan. b. Provide an additional hydrant at entrance to parking lot. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.403. C. Fire department connection will be needed on the front of the building at time of sprinkler installation. NFPA 13 1991 A -4 -6.2.1 d. A lock -box will need to be provided on building above fire department connection. See plan. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.302. 6. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. Building Official's conditions: a. Revise Site Plan and/or Paving and Dimensional Plan to match. b. Revise accessible parking stalls to comply with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1340. C. Meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. d. Provide recycling space as required by Minnesota State Building Code 1300.4700. Demonstration of compliance may be provided on construction documents. 9. The applicant shall provide the City with a recorded copy of a cross access agreement between Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven and Forty -one Crossing. 10. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City and the Metropolitan Council approving a minor comprehensive plan amendment from residential medium density to commercial. 11. At time of building permit issuance, the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on SAC units. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 1997 12. The interior landscaped islands in the parking lot shall also have concrete curb and gutter. 13. 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. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. 14. All roof top equipment shall be screened from views." 15. Have staff review the pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the entire shopping center to make sure that it meets any requirements that we believe is important for a shopping center to have based on today's standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: We have no meeting next during the 4` of July week. Traditionally we've tried to not have a meeting just because it's hard to get a quorum. But we will have some items for the 10 We'll do the next section of the comprehensive plan which will be the housing element. We'll also be talking, have our first look, first blush look at the Bluff Creek overlay district. We've got an office building in on the Pond. The one next to St. Hubert's so that's exciting. And then Sharmin's been doing an amendment on how porches and how the setbacks ... so we will have some items on the 16 th . And then I introduced you to Jacqueline Schroeder, our intern. She will be starting on her second year... graduate school so she's helping us this summer doing some projects. Attending meetings. Learning. That's all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 4, 1997 as presented. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 35 ri i ' N . GRROJIIND -+KaN LN L(..) 4,4 .5' �g ar: aaa: •oa~ E r+ FFE 996.2 i<si�.. 8lC CIVIL FdR RlaIIIRAOlen'"��. MoD�Flfi\reeeY. Tv NIfwN.r Ln - 1 - r "I � - ;v e�a � `O'.Q"_ mar•o•' ts'.e•' SS:y r +.. . dOl6 i b- IA'41r oultb- � L -� �. + .___. _.__. .. ___ ^ V• 1 '7! "Cls P4 TV OW42' � I rMfAIiY LWG 4 O• }'8' = ° I�e ~ �i r - - - _ Llmrr POLF w 1�r eKo P'`•' ,I I '� III �I it o b: IYiuDail lil � -ui \JKG '�I DIVID{N6 • III wl /u -vING III �� � � "'6 cl ` '+ • LINE _ T 0 TL ni Wit [I �I - .l � � / fir �• � 41� b ` I I � I I _ ,L� � ur.' �-- 1- 1•'ii -L I . -' . � ?' .'� � „ �I � Q I p•� . N 'I A RETAIL 6UILDIN„ IO S�c� G y_ -p_+ 9a'ro" _ {• F �� ti ��'Yf � i C �' I _ Fcs =e \ `\.s I' I eo - f .'). ..• e, cyjS / �. b: i I `r. INITE GFOUMD T� N6 � Ip- ( 1 - TE.AS4 aN6LOSU e '.� '1� a \Spc 'b`y 'e! /? I 1 y ✓n°' \. SCE DETAIL 7�l . JrY rROVIDC STOP 6 1.50-0 sEre -+AGIC - - - - -� / ^ 7: ARO •GL• y- vl ww 5tr STS jr W0 d M H AOME 2 K' I NWT 222.99' �s N \ I on h Q 6 F 'SC t 1 IA RJ Y FwH P ROPEIeiy �FPA,.0 'er <D a IJDAT'IG13 / Q IJo7 g PAIZi <!t C- BATA r x Oic F�rDUIRED I'bDIFICATYiN`.. I. PAKWN(a . -OR 6LONuP rVeJ OF 25 A . 66 G s.p OF )zETA1L -1W c �p1 �CUr �iN¢ry N TMPICAL ROOFING NOTES ss i 1 _P °RKI4Xi p{:p�rlpgp: 141 Q2• ' - `KiYIGEV rp(C { N ^ a�:Sd „ u 112 IJaT•o�u "t; ' ID7.4a tot .L...- u erq meric(A :4 IEe a w.IT N r "I � - ;v e�a � `O'.Q"_ mar•o•' ts'.e•' SS:y r +.. . dOl6 i b- IA'41r oultb- � L -� �. + .___. _.__. .. ___ ^ V• 1 '7! "Cls P4 TV OW42' � I rMfAIiY LWG 4 O• }'8' = ° I�e ~ �i r - - - _ Llmrr POLF w 1�r eKo P'`•' ,I I '� III �I it o b: IYiuDail lil � -ui \JKG '�I DIVID{N6 • III wl /u -vING III �� � � "'6 cl ` '+ • LINE _ T 0 TL ni Wit [I �I - .l � � / fir �• � 41� b ` I I � I I _ ,L� � ur.' �-- 1- 1•'ii -L I . -' . � ?' .'� � „ �I � Q I p•� . N 'I A RETAIL 6UILDIN„ IO S�c� G y_ -p_+ 9a'ro" _ {• F �� ti ��'Yf � i C �' I _ Fcs =e \ `\.s I' I eo - f .'). ..• e, cyjS / �. b: i I `r. INITE GFOUMD T� N6 � Ip- ( 1 - TE.AS4 aN6LOSU e '.� '1� a \Spc 'b`y 'e! /? I 1 y ✓n°' \. SCE DETAIL 7�l . JrY rROVIDC STOP 6 1.50-0 sEre -+AGIC - - - - -� / ^ 7: ARO •GL• y- vl ww 5tr STS jr W0 d M H AOME 2 K' I NWT 222.99' �s N \ I on h Q 6 F 'SC t 1 IA RJ Y FwH P ROPEIeiy �FPA,.0 'er <D a IJDAT'IG13 / Q IJo7 g PAIZi <!t C- BATA r x Oic F�rDUIRED I'bDIFICATYiN`.. I. PAKWN(a . -OR 6LONuP rVeJ OF 25 A . 66 G s.p OF )zETA1L -1W c �p1 �CUr �iN¢ry N TMPICAL ROOFING NOTES ss i 1 _P °RKI4Xi p{:p�rlpgp: 141 Q2• ' - `KiYIGEV rp(C { N ^ a�:Sd „ u 112