11. Site Plan Review Request, 501 West 78th Street, Hiway 5 center, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey0
CITY OF
C8AN ASSEN
P.C. DATE: 5 -15 -96
C.C. DATE: 6 -10 -96
CASE: 96-4 Site Plan
BY: Al -Jaffe
11.
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for the construction of a one story, Multi -Tenant Retail
Building with an area of 10,000 square feet and a 13 foot parking setback
variance.
a
a
1
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
North of Highway 5, West of Great Plains Boulevard, South of West 79th
Street and East of the Chanhassen Inn
Roman Roos
1727 Green Crest Drive
Victoria, MN 55386
(612)829 -3848
'
PRESENT ZONING:
'
ACREAGE:
ADJACENT ZONING
'
AND LAND USE:
0
SEWER AND WATER:
Mike Ramsey
22173 Harsdale Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48335
(810)615 -0959
BH, Highway Business District
1.06 acres
N - West 79th Street
S - Highway 5
E - Holiday and Great Plains Boulevard, Highway Business
W - Chanhassen Inn/Highway Business
Services are available to the site.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is fairly level, previously occupied by the Prairie
House Restaurant Building. The building was demolished
between April 3 -10, 1996 to prepare the site for future
development.
2000 LAND USE: Commercial
1
1
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
There applicant is requesting site plan review approval for the construction of a one story, multi -
tenant retail building with an area of 10,000 square feet. It is proposed to be occupied by
Bruegger's Bagel, a coffee shop, an optometrist, Dominos Pizza, and a sporting goods store. The
site is zoned BH, Highway Business District and bordered by West 79th Street to the north,
Highway 5 to the south, Holiday Service Station and Great Plains Boulevard to the east, and
Chanhassen Inn to the west. The site was the location of the Prairie House Restaurant. It was
demolished in April of 1996.
The lot area for the site is 1.06 acres. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full
access from West 79th Street. Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately three
months. Discussions have taken place in regard to the Highway 5 overlay district and the image
that needs to be projected such as screening of the parking lot and higher quality materials and
design for the building. The site plan for the multi -tenant retail building was designed
accordingly. It is well designed and staff believes it will enhance the image of Highway 5. They
are proposing to utilize rock face block with brick accents along the base of the building and
columns and stucco.
t Service doors are proposed for those tenants that would need them along the east elevation of the
building. Vehicular parking is proposed along the west portion of the site. This area is in the
highway corridor which uses the underlying district for setbacks. The parking as proposed meets
t the Hwy. 5 zoning district requirement. Screening of the parking and service areas need to be
enhanced.
' One unusual situation associated with this application concerns the hard surface coverage. This
issue is discussed in further detail in the General Site Plan/Architecture section of the report.
' There is a variance attached to this application relating to a front yard parking lot setback
from West 79th Street. The applicant is showing a 12 foot setback when the ordinance
requires a 25 foot setback. Staff has not published the variance nor held a public hearing
for it. We were hoping that the applicant would be able to provide the required 25 foot
wide parking lot setback. Staff is presenting all the facts regarding the variance at this
time and we are hoping that the City Council would give us direction on whether they
' would be willing to approve it or not. If the direction is to approve the variance, then staff
will schedule this item on the next Planning Commission meeting and bring it before the
' City Council for official action. Meanwhile, we will issue the building permit for the
applicant to start work on the project, contingent upon the City Council approving the
variance no later than 30 days following building permit issuance.
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 3
If the City Council decides to deny the variance, then the applicant will have to revise the
plan accordingly.
Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the
Highway 5 corridor's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the
site plan, without variances with conditions outlined in the staff report.
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
The proposed one story, multi -tenant retail building, with an area of 10,000 square feet each, will
be situated parallel to and north of Highway 5. It is proposed to be occupied by Bruegger's Bagel,
a coffee shop, an optometrist, Dominos Pizza, and a sporting goods store. The site is zoned BH,
Highway Business District and bordered by West 79th Street to the north, Highway 5 to the south,
Holiday service station and Great Plains Boulevard to the east, and Chanhassen Inn to the west.
Access to the building is proposed from West 79th Street. Parking will be located west of the
proposed building. A meandering berm with landscaping, 2 feet in height, is proposed to be
installed along the perimeter of the site to provide screening. Staff is recommending this berm
be increased in height to 2 to 4 feet in height. The building is located 56 feet from the north, 20
feet from the east, 40 feet from the south, and 73.2 feet from the west property line.
The lot area for the site is 1.06 acres. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full
access from West 79th Street. Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately three
months. Discussions have taken place in regard to the Highway 5 overlay district and the image
that needs to be projected such as screening of the parking lot and higher quality materials and
design for the building. The site plan for the multi -tenant retail building was designed
accordingly. It is well designed and staff believes it will enhance the image of Highway 5. They
are proposing to utilize rock face block with brick accents along the base of the building and
columns and stucco. Decorative clerestory opening adorn the pitched element on all four
elevations. Decorative medallions are located on each side of the clerestory. The different
materials give the building the desired visual appeal. An attractive feature on this site is the
proposed patio area facing Highway 5. Staff believes it will add an inviting and charming
characteristic to the Highway.
Service doors are proposed for those tenants that would need them along the east elevation of the
building. Vehicular parking is proposed along the west portion of the site. This area is in the
highway corridor which uses the underlying district for setbacks. The parking as proposed meets
the Hwy. 5 zoning district requirement. Screening of the parking and service areas need to be
enhanced. The landscaping and grading plans indicate the use of evergreens and two foot high
berms to provide the screening. There are certain areas such as the service and parking area, that
could use a variety of trees and bushes for additional screening. The proposed two foot berm
' Highway 5 Centre
' June 10, 1996
Page 4
should be changed into a meandering berm of 2 to 4 feet in height and run along the entire edge
' of the site to provide screening.
' One unusual situation associated with this application concerns the hard surface coverage of the
site. The current coverage totals 82.5% of the site area. At the southeast corner of the site is a
parcel owned by the City with an area of 11,350 square feet. The City purchased it on June 11,
' 1991, with the intention of leaving it as an open space area. Prior to this date, this parcel was
part of the subject site. The applicant approached staff requesting to lease the City property to
make up the hard surface coverage difference. The lease will require approval by the Housing
' and Redevelopment Authority
amount to 66.1 The ordinance allows a maximum of 65% hard surface coverage in the
Highway Business District. Ale be lieve tha we w ill b bl t thi detail out � +''°
' . The applicant has revised the landscape plans by
increasing the size of the landscape islands which resulted in a 65% hard surface coverage
as required by ordinance. One idea that has been discussed in -house among staff is relocating
' the patio area onto the HRA property. This arrangement would provide for a more desirable
outdoor seating area since it will be setback further from the Highway 5 right -of -way and allow
for additional landscape area. Staff is requesting permission to work out this detail with the
' applicant if the proposal was acceptable to the HRA. The applicant has submitted a revised
landscape plan showing the relocation of the patio onto the HRA property and adding
' additional landscaping. We believe that this scenario is more attractive and functional
since it provides a larger seating area with more vegetation. The City is also benefiting
since landscaping is being added on city property.
' As mentioned earlier, this development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay and must
comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Highway Business District
' Standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high - quality architectural and site
design through improved development standards within the corridor. The design standards
should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of
the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features:
• The building will be one story and the architectural style is unique to the building but will
' fit in. The building will provide a variation in style through the use of brick, stucco,
glass, and pitched elements. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable
and of high quality. Samples of the materials as well as a rendering will be available at
' the meeting.
• The site is fairly level. The landscaping plan will provide a variety of plant materials that
' are massed where possible, particularly along Highway 5. The berms and landscaping
materials will be continuous along the perimeter of the site. The plant materials are
' repetitious in some locations and variable in others. Proposed plant materials are
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 5
indigenous to Minnesota. A curb is required along the perimeter of the green space area.
All planting areas are adequate in size to allow trees to grow. Additional plantings along
the south and east portions of the site will be required.
A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and
height. A detailed sign plan which include lighting method will also be required.
Individual channeled letters with the option of back lighting are permitted.
The site plan shows the trash enclosure along the northeast corner of the building. The
dumpsters must be completely screened by the enclosure with siding and trim to match
the building. 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 natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the '
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
'
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
'
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
'
J
l_ J
r
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 6
a.
R3
C.
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;
The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
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 City's Highway 5 corridor
design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan
t review requirements. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments.
It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area.
' Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the
Highway 5 corridor's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the
site plan, without variances with conditions outlined in the staff report.
' GRADING & DRAINAGE
' The existing building on the site has already been demolished. The site drains in a southwesterly
direction to an existing drainage swale which conveys water to a culvert underneath Highway 5.
The applicant should submit storm sewer calculations to City staff for review and determination
' of whether or not additional storm sewers are needed within the parking lot. At this point it
appears no additional storm sewers will be necessary; however, storm sewer calculations are
necessary to confirm that assessment.
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 7
UTILITIES
Municipal utility services are available. Additional requirements may be imposed such as gate
valves by the City's Building Department with regards to water service since this site services
both the existing motel and proposed development. The utility installation will require permits
through the building department.
STREETS/PARKINGANTERIOR CIRCULATION
The site is proposed to be serviced from two driveway access points off of West 79th Street. The
westerly access drive is proposed to be shared with the site to the west (Chanhassen Inn). Staff will
require a cross access easement to be recorded against the property.
The City's parking ordinance for a 10,000 square foot retail building is at a rate of 1 space per
200 square feet and will result in 50 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 50 spaces.
The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that handicapped parking spaces be
provided at the rate of one handicapped space per every 25 spaces in the lot(s). This calculates
out to 2 spaces. The submitted site plan includes three handicapped parking spaces. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has specific requirements for van spaces which currently
are not part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division, but
should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated by the MSBC, and are
not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are details that must be included
on the site plans.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has submitted landscaping plans for the proposed Highway 5 Centre. Landscaping
requirements for the site include 1,823 sq. ft. of landscaped area, 7 trees for the parking lot, 10
trees for frontage road requirements, and interior landscaping in the parking lot.
The minimum required landscaped area has been provided for within the proposed plans as well
as the 10 trees required for street frontage landscaping. However t 2 z7
� + i-l�d-te
adequately provide for the interior- landsGaping or trees A4thin the parking let. Only four trees
have been p roposed and o ne i : .1 d thi t h k b a.'a. The applicant l
... .... Y...t......... w+. vuv uavav a.�aauau z`� ' .. T Ytt
need to meet these requirements or- apply for- a varianese befere staff will approve the landseaping
plam The applicant has revised the landscaping plan for the parking lot by enlarging the
landscape islands to allow for additional trees, in order to meet ordinance requirements.
In general, trees and other plantings are just above minimum requirements in numbers and area.
Since the southern side of the development faces Highway 5, it is in the best interests of the
7
u
' Highway 5 Centre
' June 10, 1996
Page 8
' businesses and community to have increased and attractive landscaping fronting the highway.
Three spruce More trees should be have been added to the seath€ eastern side, ant
is near the area intended to be used as a patio for customers. We strongly believe that a
' separation between people and traffic is necessary if the atmosphere of the outdoor seating area is
to be at all inviting. In addition, a bike trail will be approximately 20 feet from the patio and will
potentially create additional reasons for increased landscape buffering. Therefore, we
' recommend that an additional four to six trees be planted along the south side of the patio
area. Staff and the Planning Commission requested that the land adjacent and directly east to
the proposed development owned by the city be considered as an alternative location for the
' proposed patio area. There are a number of reasons why this location would be more suitable.
Firstly, the area could be located further away from the highway, over 30 feet, and the bike trail
than the proposed location. Secondly, there is more room available for landscaping. Third,
' directly in front of that area, MnDOT is planting trees and a shrub bed which will provide further
screening from the highway in the future.
' LIGHTING
Lighting locations for the parking lot have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded
fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than '' /z 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 has not submitted a complete signage plan. One ground low profile business sign
is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 8 feet for parcels
' with a principal structure of less then 50,000 square feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot
setback from the property lines.
' One pylon sign is also permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a
height of 16 feet for parcels with a principal structure of less then 50,000 square feet. The sign
must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property lines.
' Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total
display area shall not exceed 13% of the total area of the north or south building wall upon which
' the signs are mounted. The total area of the signs may not exceed 90 square feet.
The total display area along the west elevation may not exceed 7% of the total area of the wall
upon which the signs are mounted on. The total area of the signs may not exceed 224 square
feet.
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 9
The applicant is showing signage on three elevations. The ordinance specifically states that wall
mounted signage shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a
building only. In this specific situation, the entryways into these stores will be along the west
elevation. Staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to use this elevation, however,
signage should be limited to two elevations only. Staff is recommending the following criteria
be adopted:
All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet).
3. All signs require a separate permit.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
6. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
7. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height.
8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
9. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet
and a height of 16 feet.
The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be
posted on the driveways at the exit points 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 - BH DISTRICT
Ordinance Building 1
Building Height 2 stories 1 story
I
IF]
I
7
u
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 10
Building Setback N -25' E -10' N -56' E -20
S -25' W -10' S -40' W -73.2'
Parking stalls 50 stalls 50 stalls
Parking Setback N -25' E -0' N -12'* E -90'
S -25' W -0' S -20* W -0'
Hard surface 70% 58% 69.3%
Coverage
Lot Area 1 acre 5.43 acres 4.8 acres
* The zoning ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard setback for parking areas, and no
setback when parking lots are adjacent to one another. Staff is recommending the
require se o 25 f + be maintained Staff has been working with the applicant
to try and eliminate the parking setback variance, however, short of reducing the
size of the building, the applicant will not be able to meet the required setback.
Staff examined properties along the north, east and west, for parking setbacks and
noticed that none of them meet the required parking setback. Furthermore, the
previous parking lot which served the Prairie House Restaurant, did not meet the
required setback. Allowing the applicant a reduced parking setback will not create
a precedent in the area. Also, there is a green space area located outside the
property line and along the public right -of -way which gives the appearance of a
wider front yard parking setback.
VARIANCE
Staff has not published the variance nor held a public hearing for it. We were hoping that
the applicant would be able to provide the required 25 foot wide parking lot setback. Staff
is presenting all the facts regarding the variance at this time and we are hoping that the
City Council would give us direction on whether they would be will to approve it or not. If
the direction is to approve the variance, then staff will schedule this item on the next
Planning Commission meeting and bring it before the City Council for official action.
If the City Council decides to deny the variance, then the applicant will have to revise the
plan accordingly.
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 11
ANALYSIS
The zoning ordinance requires all parking lots to be setback a minimum of 25 feet from public
right -of -way. The applicant is providing a 12 foot front yard parking setback. There is an
additional eight foot green space area between the property line and the actual curb which gives the
appearance of a wider front yard setback.
12I0i17MIM
The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop neighborhoods pre - existing
standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing
downward from them to meet this criteria.
* The hardship in this case is created by the physical surroundings of the area which is
Highway 5 to the south and West 79th to the north. The majority of the surrounding
properties have a similar setback. Therefor, this variance will not create a precedent
in the area. The new development will be able to blend with these pre- existing
standards without departing downward from them.
LN
C.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
* The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not applicable
generally to other properties within the same zoning classification.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
* The purpose of this variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel but actually to allow the property owner to make
better use of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship.
I
' Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 12
* The difficulty or hardship is not self - created. The hardship is a result of the physical
' surroundings of the area (Highway 5 and West 79th Street). The applicant has to lot
frontages with would require two front yard setbacks. Staff would rather see the
' setback reduced form West 79th Street and maintain the required setback from
Highway 5.
' e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
' * Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger
' of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
' * The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. It
will not increase the traffic.
' Staff is recommending approval of this variance based upon the findings listed above.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE.
' On May 15, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application. Overall, they
were pleased with the proposal, however, some issues were raised. These issues are as follows:
' The Planning Commission strongly felt that a sidewalk needed to be introduced along West 79th
Street. They also indicated that if staff researched the matter and discovered that one could be
placed on the subject site, and this in turn resulted in an increase of the hard surface coverage, then
' they would recommend approval of the variance to the hard surface coverage to allow the sidewalk.
Staff researched this matter and concluded that the logical place for a sidewalk is along the north
side of West 79th Street. Since there are existing sidewalks along the Americana Community Bank
' and Applebees site, it only makes sense to continue the sidewalk along that side.
The second issue relates to the location of the patio. The plans which were presented to the
' Planning Commission showed the patio immediately south of the proposed building. Staff
recommended the patio be shifted to the east and onto the section owned by the HRA. The
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 13
Planning Commission concurred with staff and directed the applicant to work with staff and
prepare alternatives showing the patio area shifted to the east (attachment # 6).
The third issue was in regard to the east elevation of the building. This elevation will be viewed
from Highway 5. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant investigate methods that
would add to the architectural design of that elevation. The applicant has increased the landscaping
along the southeast portion of the site to screen the service area.
19D14113316 M110 17.1111110
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approve Site Plan Review #96 -4 as shown on the site plan dated April 12,
1996, 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. Signage criteria:
a. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet).
C. All signs require a separate permit.
d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
f. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height.
h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
i
1
t
1
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 14
i. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet
and a height of 16 feet.
j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One
stop sign must be posted on each driveway at the exit points of site. A detailed
sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be
provided prior to requesting a sign permit.
3. A pp li can t p rovide l peninsu in th e par- l et. Screening of
parking lot and the east south elevation must be increased. Screening may include
berms, ornamental, and evergreen trees. A minimum of four to six trees will be planted
along the south side of the patio area.
4.
5.
a.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Fire Marshal conditions:
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04 -1991
(Fire Department Notes to be included on site plans), copy enclosed.
RI
C.
P
6.
11
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07 -1991
(Pre -Fire plans), copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992,
(Premise Identification), copy enclosed.
Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34 -1993, (Water service
installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36 -1994,
(Combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40 -1995,
(Fire Sprinkler systems), copy enclosed.
g. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on the water service line.
Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 15
Relocate the two required accessible parking spaces along the center of the building.
Relocate the accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side of
the building as discussed in the attached Building Official memo.
8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
9. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year
storm event. Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be
wan-anted.
10. The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the
site.
11. Utility installation will require permits through the City's building department. Gate
valves will be required on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building.
12. Cross - access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot/drive aisle.
13. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City HRA approving the lease of the land
located east of the subject site.
14. The hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed 65 %.
15. The patio area may be moved to the east of the subject property and onto the city property
pending approval of the HRA. The applicant shall supply the staff and City Council with a
detailed landscape plan of the patio area.
16. The parking lot must maintain a 25 foot setback along the north and south unless the
applicant applies for a variance. The City will issue the building permit for the
applicant to start work on the project, contingent upon the City Council approving
the variance no later than 30 days following building permit issuance.
paFeel and make it's recomme t th City r '1
1
Highway 5 Centre
June 10, 1996
Page 16
19. The applicant shall try to integrate the Highway 5 Centre parking lot with the motel
parking lot."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map showing property owned by the City.
2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 6, 1996.
3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated April 24, 1996.
4. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated May 7, 1996.
5. Application.
6. Detailed landscaping plan of the patio area.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1996.
8. Plans dated April 12, 1996.
'ON - MH 3iVis
3 ,OClZgoZO N
CL'9F
3
0 C
O 00
o �-
Cn
co
Z
- i
V)
O
M
� O
M
m o
N �
r G
S 00 0 40'00' E
56.70
Ar
_ \ ` oo.
R ,
` S ,
0 � vn
} O
mz_
O V J
O
� N C)
a ��• W
C-A�� O ,a Zg4 0
t o 0 �O
CD
\\
W .-
}0 3
< = v
p Q Lr)
z N a- 4
DF to M)
m 0
2
■
LLJQs
V)
a
WIN
C) _ 1
D ADM►
m � �g 1
0
Q s�
O 1
1
1
1
� 1
� 1
� 1
I 0)
O •( g
N 08 -ZO ou 1.
0
Q
w�
N
Q
LL-
�
0
Z
/y
V
O
cn
L) 0
F —
O
}
V
w
D
M
N
��
9p
Q
0 9
gl S
,
,
z
W .-
}0 3
< = v
p Q Lr)
z N a- 4
DF to M)
m 0
2
■
LLJQs
V)
a
WIN
C) _ 1
D ADM►
m � �g 1
0
Q s�
O 1
1
1
1
� 1
� 1
� 1
I 0)
O •( g
N 08 -ZO ou 1.
0
1
1
i
1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
1 DATE: May 6, 1 996
1 SUBJECT: 96 -4 SPR (Hiway 5 Centre, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey)
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED,
1 APR 12 1996, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." forthe above referenced project.
Analysis:
1 Accessible parking spaces must be located on the shortest possible accessible route to the building. In this
case, the two required accessible spaces should be located in the center of the parking lot with the accessible
1 curb cut on either side of the planting area at the center of the building. An eight foot wide van accessible
aisle is required.
1 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.
1 Recommendation:
1. Relocate two required accessible parking spaces to the center of the building to the center of the
1 building. Relocate the accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side
of the building.
1
1 g:\safety\sak \memos \plan\hiwylct,
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: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: April 24, 1996
RE: Request for site plan review of a 10,000 sq. ft. retail facility on 1.06 acres on
property zoned 13H, highway business district and located at 501 West 78th
Street, Hwy 5 Centre, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey.
Planning Case: 96 -4, Site Plan Review
I reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city
ordinance policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information
submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code
or policy items will be addressed.
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04 -1991
(Fire Department Notes to be included on site plans), copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07 -1991
(Pre -Fire plans), copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992,
(Premise Identification), copy enclosed.
Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34 -1993, (Water service
installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36 -1994,
(Combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed.
MEMORANDUM
6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40 -1995,
(Fire Sprinkler systems), copy enclosed.
Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on the water service line.
Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
g: /safety /ml/964
U
1
I
■
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
1
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
1
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS,
1
1.
Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per
NFPA 13- 8 -2.1.
1
2.
A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
1
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 hvdrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases
1
of construction.
1
5.
The use of liquefied petroleum eas shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard
58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is
available. (See policy #33 -1993)
1
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
1
occupancy is issued.
7.
An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built
1
shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07- 1991).
8.
An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use.
1
The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located
by the Fire Marshal.
Chanhassen Fire Department
1
Fire Prevention
Policy #04 -1991
Date: 11/22/91
'
Revised: 12/23/94
Page 1 of 2
'
1
9. Hieh -oiled 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 si na a 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).
Approved - Public Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04 -1991
Date: 11/22/91
Revised: 12/23/94
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • 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) Size 11" x 17" (maximum)
2) Building footprint and building dimensions
3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes
4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or dead end
5) Fire hydrant locations
6) P.I.V. - Fire Department connection
7) Gas meter (shut -off), NSP (shut off)
8) Lock box location
9) Fire walls, if applicable
10) Roof vents, if applicable
11) Interior walls
12) Exterior doors
13) Location of fire alarm panel
14) Sprinkler riser location
15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable
16) Haz. Mat. storage, if applicable
17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable
18) Type of construction walls /roof
19) Standpipes
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.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #07 -1991
Date: 01/16/91
1r`
Revised: 02/18/94
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
General
CITY OF
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.
Other Requirements - General
1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background.
2_ Numbers shall not be In script
3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size
and Iocatlon must be approved. '
4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement *3 must still
be met
1 S. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary.
Residential Rearirements 12 or less dweMnq unM
1 1. Minimum height shall be 5 114 ".
2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department
1 Commercial Requirements
1. Minimum height shall be 12 ".
1 2. Strip Malls
a. Multi tenant building will have minimuin height requirements of 6 ".
b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors.
1 recto
3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the
buildings main entrance.
1 Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #29 -1992
Date: 06 /15/92
Revised:
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
' It PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 e CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION POLICY
FOR CONINIERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
i) The Inspections Division shall be responsible for issuance of permits. No permit
shall be issued until approval of plans have been obtained from the following:
a) Engineering Department
b) Fire Marshal
C) Minnesota Department of Health
d) Plumbing Inspector
2) Plumbing inspectors will do all installation inspections and witness the hydrostatic
and conductivity tests.
Inspection and Test Requirements
a) All pipe shall be inspected before being covered. Phone 937 -1900,
ext. 31, to schedule inspections. A 24 hour notice is required.
b) Conductivity test is required. The pipe shall be subjected to a minimum
350 amp test for a period of not less than 5 minutes.
C) Hydrostatic test required. All pipe shall be subjected to a hydrostatic
pressure of 150 psi for 2 hours. Allowable pressure drop shall not exceed
1 PSI.
d) Pipe shall not be run under buildings - NFPA 248 -3.1.
3) Upon approval of the hydro test, the plumbing inspector shall submit a copy of
the inspection report to the utility superintendent. The inspection report shall note
whether the system is ready for main flush and drawing of water sample for the
but test.
Inspections Division
Water Service Installation
Policy r#34 -1993
Date: 04/15/93
Revised: 4/17/96
Page 1 of 2
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4) Water main flushing shall be witnessed by the utility superintendent.
a) Watermain flushing may be scheduled by contacting the utility
superintendent at 474 -2086. A 48 hour notice is required.
b) The utility superintendent shall obtain a water sample for a bacteria test
after the main flush and deliver to a testing company. The contractor shall
be responsible for testing costs. Allow two weeks for testing results to be
returned to the City.
C) Upon receiving approval of the water sample test, the utility
superintendent shall submit a copy to each plumbing inspector and turn
water on to the tested and approved sections of the piping.
5) An additional supervised flush and flow test will be required and witnessed by
the Fire Marshal for services supplying fire suppression systems. The flush and
flow test shall be performed in accordance with 1991 edition of NFPA 13, Sec. 8-
2.1. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal at 937 -1900, ext. 132.
6) Watermain installations shall comply with:
a) Minnesota Plumbing Code, Chapter 4715
b) Chanhassen Engineering Department, Watermain Specifications
c) National Fire Protection Association, Chapter 24
7) Only authorized city employees are permitted to operate city water control valves.
For water turn on or off contact the utility superintendent by phone 474 -2086. A
24 hour notice is required.
v
Approved - Public Safety Director
Inspections Division
Water Service Installation
Policy #34 -1993
Date: 04/15/93
Revised: 04/17/96
Paae 2 of 2
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROTECTIVE INSPECTION DIVISION POLICY
MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE
ON A COMBINATION DOMESTIC /FIRE SPRINKLER SUPPLY LINE
1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the
combination service water supply line.
2. 1 1/2" domestic off 6" line
3. 2" domestic off 8" line
4. 2 1/2 domestic off 10" line
Option 1: Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hydraulically that the
demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire sprinkler water below its
minimum gallonage required.
Option 2: Combination domestic and five line service shall have an electric solenoid valve
installed on the domestic side of the service. This valve shall be normally
powered open and close on loss of electric power or signal from the system water
flow indicator.
Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Mechanical
Inspector.
t eo75
Approved - P6 lic Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Water Line Sizing
Policy #36 -1994
Date: 06/10/94
Revised:
Page 1 of 1
I
11
1
I
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,
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
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 calculations to:
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 by 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 Friday. Please try to arrange tests at least 24 hours in advance.
All revisions 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 t 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 38 of
the MBC).
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention Division
Policy #40 -1995
Date: 01/12/95
Revised: 04/26/95
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 nQt 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- action valving.
15. The definition of inspection is contained in MN 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).
Approved - Public Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention Division
Policy #40 -1995
Date: 01/12/95
Revised: 04/26/95
Page: 2 of 2
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: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: May 7, 1996
SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for 501 West 78th Street - Roman Roos
Upon review of the plan prepared by RSP dated April 12, 1996, I offer the following comments
and recommendations:
GRADING
The existing building on the site has already been demolished. The site drains in a southwesterly
direction to an existing drainage swale which conveys water to a culvert underneath Highway 5.
The applicant should submit storm sewer calculations to City staff for review and determination of
whether or not additional storm sewers are needed within the parking lot. At this point it appears
no additional storm sewers will be necessary; however, storm sewer calculations are necessary to
confirm that assessment.
UTILITIES
Municipal utility services are available. Additional requirements may be imposed such as gate
valves by the City's Building Department with regards to water service since this site services
both the existing motel and proposed development. The utility installation will require permits
through the building department.
STREETS
Access is via two curb cuts from West 79th Street. The parking lot layout appears acceptable.
Cross - access easements for parking is recommended.
Sharmin AWaff
Site Plan Review for Roman Roos
May 7, 1996
Page 2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year
storm event. Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be warranted.
2. The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the
site.
3. Utility installation will require permits through the City's building department. Gate
valves will be required on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building.
4. Cross - access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot/drive aisle.
ktm
g:'=gWave11-4ws.Tr
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: ROMAN Rnnc
ADDRESS: 172 Green Cre D rive
Vin.tnria_ Min nesota 55386
TELEPHONE (Day time) 61
OWNER: MTKF RAWFV
ADDRESS: "173 Harsdale Drive
Farmington Hills, Mich. gans5
TELEPHONE: 810 -615 -0959
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non- conforming Use Permit
_ Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
_ Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW /Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
X Notification Sign 1 150
— Site Plan Review" X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost *"
' 35D ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision" I TOTAL FEE $
' Sod
Ip G v
' 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'/:" 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.
PROJECT NAME HIGHWAY 5 CENTRE
LOCATION 501 West 79th Street. C hanhasgen Minneso 55917
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 9 ,. Block 1. 7.amor Addition. (Le val to fnl low)
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
Annrnx_ 470nnaf
YES X_ NO
PRESENT ZONING uia},T,a37 R1ICinACC
REQUESTED ZONING No Chanee
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Ret.ai 1
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Nn (hanva
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Removal of existi_ngbuildine and the construction of a
naw 1 ln(r crinana fnnl rat-ail rant _
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information '
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written '
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with '
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person '
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further '
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing '
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review t
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature of Applicant Date '
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. '
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
■■■ in
�C� � \� ��= 1111111 11111111111
� � 1► . ��� li��t C9t1"!1
�. ■ ■LliElil�i��� X111 111111
N1
' Project: Site Plan Review
1
I
7
1
1
I
Developer: Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey
Location: 501 West 79th Street
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area.
The applicant, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey, is requesting site plan review of a 10,000 square foot retail
facility on 1.06 acres of property zoned BH, Highway Business District and located at 501 West 79th
Street, Hiway 5 Centre.
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:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, MAY 15, 1996
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
1. Staff will give an over view 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 or 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 May 2, 1996.
t
Chanhassen Inn
531 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ralph Molnau & Ronald Dubbe
356 3% Street West
Waconia, MN 55387
Michael Sorenson
7900 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen Vet Clinic
440 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. John Przymus
New Revolutions
406 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Amoco American Oil Co.
Property Tax Dept. Waterfront Associates
200 E. Randolph Dr. MC 2408 440 Union Place
Chicago, IL 60601 -7125 Excelsior, MN 55331
B. C. Burdick Holiday Station Stores
684 Excelsior Blvd. 4567 80th Street West
Excelsior, MN 55331 Bloomington, MN 55437
Brown's Standard
Dr. Stephen Benson
7905 Great Plains Blvd. 500 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen Kitchen & Bath
Cheers Wine & Spirits
530 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Big A Auto Parts
Safari Tanning Hut
404 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
15 -APR -1996 16:38:15 ___ _______________________________ #1
Carver Complete Tax Report
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
PID# : 258900010 PROPERTY TYPE : COMM LAND& BL* TAX YEAR : 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -+
Property Information
+------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -+
ADDRESS
CITY
CITY /TWN CHANHASSEN
SCHOOL DIS: CHASKA
PLAT DESC : ZAMOR ADDITION LOT: 1 BLK: 1
LEGAL DESC: & P/0 VAC OLD LAKE LUCY RD
- ------------------------------------------------
Owner /Taxpayer Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
OWNER NAME: HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -+
TAXPAYER : HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC
ADDRESS : 4567 80TH ST W
: BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
------ - ------ ----------------- -- ---------- --- ---------------------------- - - -
- -+
;Market Values Taxes - Effective 95 Credits
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -+
LAND: 108,800 BASE TAX 17,222 STATE AID : 13,799
BLDG: 178,900 TAX W /ASSMT: 18,778 HMSTD /AGRI:
TOTAL: 287,700
SPEC REMAIN: 4,959 TOTAL CRED:
SPEC DEFER :
+------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -+
Subrecord Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -+
GREEN ACRES:
HOMESTEAD : NON - HOMESTEAD
DELINQ YEAR:
r INFORMATION
NFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED.
0
Mn /DOT Metro W.E. TEL :612- 582 -1368
�,1NEOp
Minnesota Department of Transportation
e � Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 92
Roseville, MN 55113
May 29, 1996
Sharmin Al -Jaff
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Sharmin Al -Jaf --
Subject: Hiway 5 Centre
Site Plan Review S96 -029
North Side of TH 5, West of TH 101
Chanhassen, Carver County
CS 1002
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Hiway 5 Centre site plan.
We find the plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments.
• A Mn/DOT stormwater drainage permit is be required for the proposed development.
Drainage computations and drainage area maps, showing both existing and proposed
conditions, must be submitted with the permit application. Any questions regarding
Mn/DOT's drainage concerns may be directed to Brian Kelly of our Water Resources
Section at 797 -3055. Bill Warden of our Permits Section may be contacted at 582 -1443
for information regarding the permit process.
• Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way requires an approved Mn/DOT permit.
The permit necessary depends on the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden, as noted
above, may be contacted for further information.
• Though it is not currently proposed, no access to TH 5 will be allowed from this site.
Mn/DOT owns the right to control access to TH 's in this area.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 582 -1383.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Malaby
Transportation Planner
An equal opportunity employer
■
May 30 96 12 :37 No.008 P.02 ,
C
I
F
n '
7:Z
:. ;.�" `y�F. � - �: _i �r:�'�: ifs ^'a~ - _ ^.x _ • .
Y . �,. •, V: -.. i �- 'K: -'•° � • ':O .�•l!' n - +,(:�:' _�. _ _
- _ "3 ". . � • -'6 � * y- S ;'(:�•' • °, ,. � - �( 'a.
,y "_ { � ' - + ii. ^ ' - ''•: - Mks;
�yi F D
-
T.i-: •y'\ - r, '.Y:^ ._.i y� .- f . � � / - j? `: ��; '� .('� +� jf • mot � ' -? �.s. ^_¢` .
:j �(,� ' .x ��`:•,L_:Y- _ � n,. �.�x.•: rte"- .'�., ��� -. f1,;, .�'"' i�' r• �.+•
- �{. • ,y °: '� y;s.:a�� =;•* .�. :..•' - u
tit y 1 ='� Tt a` �4.,j�• - r] " '- �� `• i -`x .
''Y < n.l ` j„1�j�i '�F.N'�'w'.Z,"Yy-l`` ,� •'. �'i �r i 'FI �Z� '` aVt ��, •• f y'.�:aY , �" .
•- .r ` __r... t�• - �C' a. �'�`.4. ri `t �`•��: _ T.e -_ • _ _ ..� _ _ �•..
l: -Q ' - ' - .P' i � K„v•lR T t _ -ii" ..' T' _ C . • - .
(' • " - .�x: i � i :.• �xxTy 'k� L•: - r 'F :r_ ',ly' _ ` .... - .>`�' "r..f�'i.::��y +. ` � -
�.� :F' _ x�� .l q, /S-. .� \ :'t: iZ.t..:1PS• l •[: ^i �f- "^!Tl. '•rP.__a- ,r ,I .N'- ��}�': '
^
'` .•o. ''r— "1� I I%
..4 Vii +Y- ,�4ii� .• `. 'h ` Fd -' rmss ' ' ' } :3r'\ .?,` : lye' •liX.. `',-0''.. ,a'+�,: `.v
;�7; ;'.ri •' - _' y`. fi ' - « �'a - .f - • "� r_ f ' � !lJ r `
_ M - , ti.: �� v,l '''i'}�`�a4- �y'.r.ri" _ " T:ra _ 2rf_.i. � " :�^ �.Y� - •- . I _ _
li i+`:: �' - ;..� ? .i �' : i"4 ''�. +.t ^�ti';�-.r .� '.�' -' A'� i aa,: "'*- e •r� _ x -. •-_
-x :.5�%..'. ♦ _S' •+r+ r � - ` . J . .«g ,v :el ,q_t a =i•a 'r .I:r,C =:4 _� s,',:��':�:.., •`.' � "'i .5 - l� ' :�''; t�. J �...` a. '
w I ' { - y.K _Y - fn` =s �t.Y.r r .j' ]'..4' _ 3 w � w l�,' �'`T _ fX' • k ~ �� "i - - - - Yi c (7,
rA ' , -, A Y ...� � *��i�i � Ja i�F�� �dj• �. )ll
(` -� Z'• -- .r.,tr: ,l i ,.• }: �c.J� �..1 ^l, •�'�� , �'u {.. Y. �. h� � r� ! \� i -n'� � �� •. ,� + -'yi . .Y'
^�� _ '•� 'c`;r•N. rko. .a�w +�..��.+, - r \�:Y,. y. :1��`,r`.,�i;L,:S -'Y �. ._.c ' r<! .: �:i. _ "��.:'� ��. _ >.a • a
�� - "- __ 4 .i �- .rte"..:.. ;'i:_ r:t: 'S �y.. •.'t( -: :.!'.F _.r<. 3 ��` • k` - "t� .-':_ �i
.' ..'y'.' :.s '. A'�.:Ci .,�:� ` '!,E', "Hw•/.µ.+J.� ..� �+•e },. . y! ^!.4\: ••r ... `�: -. f �„e _
a "°'...': v r •fin.. •• t4 yy •4: - : c "a'�v -xi: ':;w.", ��v �� ±l:'...t. µ..- - :�, i. - %w. ., •.. ^":• •� � - ,i '.: -� _
:�.- :..- FYY •' Vii'_ rf _ 1 -. '.• "k ' _ �:.i• -.-, ys -•..
:♦''?�_, -<,A _ - ' �• ti �; i, 6. de i.3:; ."i :''1�. ": "�Y. _ y _.'•: _ r.. ' ' r r � `'
, .:..� : : ..,.3.. - - .. .'y' .'K. -,_ i.Y .- ..�' - ' ' .. -w rv`. tr. ~.• _ v d - ,. +' •`�.'�':. _` "' -. _r .�9.. -
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 10.000 SOUARE FOOT RETAIL FACILITY
ON 1.06 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BH. HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND
LOCATED AT 501 WEST 78TH STREET. HIWAY 5 CENTRE. ROMAN ROOSIMIKE
RAMSEY.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions at this point?
Mehl: That green space over there. I understand about the leasing of it to get additional area
and reduce the hard surface but we aren't really gaining anything. The applicant really isn't
gaining anything is he? Because to the bystander, the person driving down Highway 5
looking at it, nothing has changed. You've still got a certain hard surface area. We aren't
reducing, really visually, the hard surface area by doing what's being proposed. You know in
reality.
Mancino: That's true.
Aanenson: It is open space. You're correct in that matter except what we're recommending,
that this proposal is that we actually landscape it and integrate it with the parcel because right
now it's probably, it's open space. It's providing impervious surface. Water can run through
the property but what we're saying is that it could be developed more intensely landscaped to
provide more aesthetics value. That that would be intent of the city. More aesthetic value.
Are you going to see physically, the utility wouldn't change except the aesthetic value would.
What would be the negative side is in order to achieve the ratios, that they would have to
reduce the size of the building. We believe that this is a high quality building and that based
on the design, it may make sense because this parcel was originally a part of that and the
HRA hasn't to date done much with it. That this is an opportunity to give more aesthetic
value to the property. Also add enhancement to the project. Instead of trying to put the patio
where they're showing it now, pushing it to the side makes it a better project.
Mancino: It allows one not to eat on Highway 5.
Aanenson: Right. They can eliminate the patio and still achieve it, sure.
Mancino: ...now that doesn't mean you couldn't push the building a little closer to Highway 5
and have your patio on the 79th Street where it's a little quieter and at least it's not a four
lane Highway 5 also. So there are other positions it could go.
15
I
U
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Aanenson: Right.
' Farmakes: The issue of a shared sign. Refresh my memory on pylon signs. We're looking at
' 64 square feet or, is that split between four tenants?
Al -Jaff. That is split between the four tenants, yes.
' Farmakes: Is there additional space for changeable type or specials of the week or whatever?
...that 64 square feet.
' Al -Jaff: I don't believe so.
' Farmakes: I'm thinking of a very similar pylon sign down ... that just deals with the mall but it
also has moveable type kind of thing.
' Aanenson: Are you talking about changeable copy or readable?
Farmakes: Changeable.
' Aanenson: Change out is permitted. As opposed to a reader, electronic.
' Farmakes: The issue of three, is reduced to two, elevations for signage is, is that sort of a
fielder's choice or are you recommending a direction? What I'm wondering is, once these
buildings get in and they're there, I'm thinking of banners and temporary type signage and
' how that's going to be positioned against Highway 5. How do you intend to... I'm thinking
current frontage now is in a parking lot that accesses the Inn. I think our current ordinances
deal with the level of signage but it's on existing street frontage. City streets. Can you just
' explain?
Al -Jaff: We've talked briefly to the applicant about this issue and there's going to be
' landscaping along Highway 5. But there will be a pylon sign along Highway 5. If there is
temporary signage that they will need, they would have to meet ordinance requirements. It is
permitted for a limited time throughout the year. And they would have to come in and apply
for a permit for it. Signage should be limited to two elevations only.
' Farmakes: So temporary type signage on the property that extends out towards Highway 5 is
a situation that, I'm trying to remember the ordinance. It's been a while since we've been
involved with it. We're not going to be having push carts out there lit up with banners hung
on trees and things of that nature.
1 16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Al -Jaff: No. They would have to meet ordinance requirements in the ordinances. But rather
than each tenant, the ordinance as far as temporary signage allows temporary signs three
times a year for I believe it's 10 days at a time. Rather than each tenant in the building being
allowed that privilege, it would be the entire building. So ... tenants in the building will be
allowed.
Mancino: 30 days max.
Farmakes: Of the four tenants, are we looking at the future subdivision, is that what we're
looking at?
Al -Jaff: Future subdivision of?
Farmakes: Larger square footage.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Aanenson: That's tentatively how they have laid it out with the lease, yes.
Farmakes: Now is that their decision then? If they want to subdivide that again.
Aanenson: Well ultimately we ... if there's adequate parking, sure. But there's a threshold of
how many square foot when you subdivide it ... probably the same square footage. So unless it
becomes something of a higher use.
Farmakes: But it allows them additional signage as well as some additional.
Aanenson: Right now there's four tenants proposed.
Mancino: So if they would subdivide it ... two more, they couldn't have two more signs?
Al -Jaff: The sign criteria that we have outlined here is really more restrictive than what the
ordinance permits, and we've talked to the applicant in regards to this. It is restricted by
square footage as well so they couldn't exceed the ordinance requirements.
Farmakes: They have a square footage and percentage so ... and they added two more stores.
Aanenson: It'd get smaller, smaller and smaller, right.
17
11
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
1
' Al -Jaff: And we're saying each letter may not exceed 2 feet in height so if there was one
strip where, or one sign band where all the signage could go.
t Joyce: I'd just ask. I assume the patio's part of the development in itself and not a tenant?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
' Joyce: Okay, so I'm sure you have a tenant picked out here originally but...
' Al -Jaff: Correct.
Joyce: Thank you.
' Mancino: Is the applicant? Would you like to present to us please.
Roman Roos: Good evening. My name is Roman Roos. I'm the developer for Mike
Ramsey, the owner of the ... I see one familiar face. A lot of change. What you see before
you is an attempt to take a 47,000 square foot site ... First of all I should clarify. The owner of
' this site is a different owner than the Prairie House Restaurant ... and so it became an issue that
could be addressed on this site plan approval process. At any rate, the building is a 10,000
square foot building that right now is 60 foot deep by the length giving it a 10,000 square
foot dimension... the minimum width of that building gives you 1,500 square foot tenant space.
...spaces inbetween. Another space would be a sporting goods store. That would
be ... business in the city of Chanhassen... Next to that would be Dominoes Pizza. We have
' soft ice cream going in in this location. In the process of negotiating the deal with a bagel
operation. That may or may not be the case in this space. Talk about an ideal world, that's
the way we would like to have it but that is not a final approval at this point in time. As a
' fallback to that we ... so it's quite a broad range then ... so as time goes, negotiation... right now
ideally we're going in that direction. The bagel operation that I had set up for that has elected
' not to go into that space. That would be a 3,000. This is a 4,000 square foot center with a
coffee shop being 1,500 square foot and 2,500 being the bagel operation. At this point in
time that is not real. There have been changes as of yesterday. So I'm back in the leasing
' mode on... Also individuals coming in for a soft ice cream or a coffee operation... cup of
coffee. Whether that patio's here or here is really wide open. Ideally we'd set it down on this
end again with the bagel operation in mind. Buy a bagel and have a cup of coffee and sit
'
down ... and take off. I'm hoping that will still become reality but regardless there will be a
patio operation and we're in the process of working with staff to authorize that... The building,
well first of all I should talk about the parking effect. When this piece of property was
' purchased out of bankruptcy there was quite a negotiation on a cross over easement... at this
point in time so that the... and this lot would in essence become one parking operation.
1 18
s
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Mancino: So you would take out that median that is still...
Roman Roos: Yeah, we'll do something with that little curb effect that you saw there and the
grade elevations that you had the Prairie House will be coming down... elevation off of that.
So that whole scene, which can be a very smooth transition. At the same time we've got a
grading plan that... But that covers, we had 55 spots on this... enough parking for any
building... so a cross over easement, I think we've addressed that issue. The green space,
again the amount of hard surface, impervious surface that we have now is what we had before
with the Prairie House... What we tried to do is enhance it somewhat. We had the idea of
using this space to supplement it ... and if the HRA sees fit to go that direction, and... aesthetic
value of the site. Not necessarily a part of the site but ... so we've yet to see what the HRA
will do but... In looking at the elevation of the dropping and also the sight distance from the
highway. What we've done basically is we've taken the ... maybe go along with that same idea
in mind. This is a standing seam roof going all the way around the unit and wrapping around
the back side so when you look at the property from, going westbound on Highway 5, it's
going to look like a finished building so you won't see the back of the building so to speak.
By the same token, on the front side of course is the entry to the west side of the building.
Again a sporting goods and of course these smaller tenants and... We're going to be using a
rock face, pre - colored block. I have some samples. These are pre - colored rock faced blocks.
Now we're using a banding effect in what we call a round face and a rock faced flat stone. It
would be these two. Basically it's a double band in effect with the same... tied in to that.
Mancino: How high up does this go?
Roman Roos: That would be the full column. If you look at the texture, the rock faced
would be the lighter color... Then the standing seam roof. The sign band's going to be what
we call a synthetic stucco. It looks like stucco. It's really not a stucco but it's a sign band
per se. There would be a lighter color again to accent the signage. The signage being... all
around the building. This ... the standing seam metal again on spire tops ... east corner of the
building. The line of sight from Highway 5 will end up, typically like most commercial
buildings... with some HVAC on the roof. Everything around that of course with some kind
of...but you can see the Highway 5 signage, or better screening from Highway 5, you can see
that we should not see from the highway the roof top units but they will be screened
regardless. We couldn't make our parapet any higher to make that so you couldn't see over
this roof top portion... I'm open for questions I guess at this point.
Mancino: Any questions at this point?
Farmakes: What is the connection between the southern section of the parking lot and the
patio... sporting goods?
19
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
' Roman Roos: The sporting goods is on the north end.
Farmakes: Or excuse me, who's on the south end?
' Roman Roos: The south end would have been Bruegger's Bagels...
' Farmakes: Right. So is that your intent to still make that a consumable area?
Roman Roos: Let me, if I can clarify. We have a Dominoes and a soft ice cream operation
' in there. And we've reviewed it for that approach. If I do put a bagel shop, bagel operation
in there, that would be fantastic... but right now I do not have a bagel operation under lease
for that building. It is my intent to go that direction. I don't have that done yet. What I'm
' saying to you basically... they would fit that patio quite well.
Aanenson: I guess the staffs position on that was, we didn't really talk about it. When we
' saw it we were kind of excited about it because the applicant's indicated there is a bike path
there. It's kind of got the aesthetic, kind of a warm kind of a look if the building is done
right. We've talked about originally when we first saw this, was putting up a fence to make it
' more inviting, but visually from the highway that doesn't, you see the fence and not the
building so we just thought it needed a warm kind of place. If you look, drive along the
road, looked over there and saw a patio kind of thing. If it was done right landscaping wise,
' that it's not loud but it was next to the bike path so we thought it would be a nice
enhancement.
' Farmakes: I think the intent is nice. The question I have though is it taking away a
landscape area to shield them from the highway?
' Roman Roos: It's not a massive patio area.
' Aanenson: No, it's not very big.
Roman Roos: Very small. Two tables. It's not a.
Aanenson: I guess that's why we'd recommend pushing it to the side so you could still have
the landscaping.
' Farmakes: In conjunction with that I'm looking at the road turn around. It goes off to the
other side. Basically that development comes very close to the highway. Either it's...
' Roman Roos: Are you saying Highway 5 is ... I missed your direction.
1 20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Farmakes: Well, to the road area.
Mancino: The parking?
Roman Roos: The actual highway.
Farmakes: Right.
Mancino: Where the parking lot comes south towards Highway 5. How far away is that...?
Aanenson: It's moving away from that property.
Mancino: From Highway 5.
Aanenson: Quite a ways.
Mancino: How far away? Do you have an approximate distance?
Farmakes: In looking at it, I mean as far as I know there's nothing there at this point in time.
It's cut grass.
Mancino: Right. You're correct.
Farmakes: So my question that I'm wondering what is being served say with that road turn
around. Let's say that that was landscaped... what is being served there?
Aanenson: That road turn around.
Mancino: Having this as a turn around right here. This area. Correct?
Farmakes: I'm looking at this area and I'm looking at this area and I'm just wondering what
is being served. If for instance this.
Mancino: You can't have green space there.
Farmakes: That's correct. Say for instance this is not a restaurant, what is being served here?
Roman Roos: If that's the case, this portion, this—will disappear. If we move that around
there to the right of there.
21
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
' Mancino: So this patio will come over here. Be relocated over to the east. This will
become green space. And the other thing, is it possible to continue this green space all the
way here. All the way here because you're not using parking, etc. and then to have this
' whole part green space which would also maybe pull the trail system away from Highway 5,
because you'd have more surface area.
' Aanenson: That's a MnDot trail. We'd have to check on that. I think part of it is, that's
where the service delivery is going to be. All that service delivery comes down that, in the
front of the building.
' Mancino: Right here.
' Aanenson: Correct.
Roman Roos: In regards to the ... and you can go out this way or this way and we just didn't
' want to have any single entrance to the parking.
Farmakes: But then that'd be still the case if we came down and turned through there. I'm
' just wondering, it goes into another parking lot.
Mancino: Maybe eliminate a couple spaces or else use some from the motel. Can't they give
' them some multi -use for the motel parking?
Aanenson: Sure. I don't think that's, I guess what my concern would be the circulation of
' the, when you've got deliveries being made in that area. Where you've got trucks blocking
that entrance...
Farmakes: No, continue down and just turn before you get to the tree.
' Roman Roos: Right there's a parking area?
Aanenson: Landscape further in here and eliminate those stalls?
t Mancino: Yes.
' Al -Jaffa There's another issue that we need to point out. Currently the green space or the
parking setback is 12 feet. The ordinance requires a 25 foot setback. The applicant should
meet that setback, there's potential to lose some additional parking spaces. One of the
t alternatives that we talked to the applicant about was actually sliding the building further to
the south. Closer to Highway 5 because you do have room to do so and meeting that, the
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
setback, green space requirement. But again, it will impact the parking. The number of
parking spaces and that's why I'm raising this issue at this time. If we take any additional
parking area and landscape here, to the south of the property and then do the same thing
along the north property line, we might be short on parking. Right now we're right on.
Mancino: I'd rather give up the...
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. Isn't our intent to shield from the highway? Either by a
large berming or certainly more than one row of trees. Not to obscure the building but isn't it
our intent to do creative landscaping along the front.
Aanenson: Right. I guess that's what we're.
Mancino: To keep this and allow this to be a variance or whatever.
Aanenson: Right. You have to back up and understand that what we were saying is that, I'm
not sure. What we're saying is, instead of looking at a wall of landscaping and not seeing the
building, wouldn't it be nicer to have some soft landscaping with something people pleasing, a
people place. And that's what we were trying to encourage. Okay now, just so you
understand that. That was our perspective. I understand what you're saying. You'd rather
see the wall landscaped but we were taking a different approach on that. That's what the
recommendation is.
Farmakes: As I understand it, you're intending to have a people place dependent on having a
tenant who will do that.
Aanenson: He's already got two people there that are going to use it.
Roman Roos: ...I'm trying to get the right mixture of tenants. The patio...
Aanenson: And the bike trails...
Farmakes: Okay, but your current tenants for food consuming would be Dominoes, which is
primarily take out.
Roman Roos: Ice cream.
Farmakes: And ice cream meaning Dairy Queen?
Roman Roos: Correct.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Farmakes: Okay. So are these people, are these restaurant operations really something that
you're going to walk down to the end of the building and consume the food? As I
understand, this is a sporting goods, is this sporting goods or what?
' Mancino: Sporting goods.
' Farmakes: Sporting goods company. Certainly the retail of that area is going to come out.
Roman Roos: I guess I'm losing what you're driving to Jeff. The idea of a patio was a
' service idea. If you're going to go over with the kids and have an ice cream cone, you'd go
down to the patio and sit down and have an ice cream cone so I guess I'm losing your
direction, okay. The intent of the, my intent on this project was for a small seating. Not a
'
big ... small seating area where at the original time Brueggers Bagels, a coffee shop and soft
ice cream operation would use that seating area. It's going to be, it's only 10,000 square foot.
It's not a very big building and the distance from either one of those stores ... into that area is
not very large. That was the intent. That intent is going to stay there.
Mancino: But it certainly is a ... pizza or you could take out.
' Roman Roos: It's a 15 minute operation. You go down and eat ice cream, you go and you
leave... tracking here.
Farmakes: What I'm looking at is I'm looking at the proposed use that's on the southern end
of that exposure. Does it work with the benefit which is taking that additional area for
' landscaping. This is an issue that's been before here...
Mancino: And which we can certainly do...
' Roman Roos: This is what I'm saying to you, we can move this around...
' Mancino: We'll move the patio here and you will get additional landscaping there.
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Now can you also, the question came up, can we also have a setback be what it is
' here and give a little more additional...
Aanenson: Right. What the ordinance requires is that you put it be screened. Have the berm
5 feet to screen the cars. Right.
1 24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Al -Jaff: If you do the reduced setback.
Aanenson: If you do the reduced setback, right. So it can be accomplished.
Mancino: So it could be accomplished and in fact this is, I mean we don't want to screen the
building as much as we're concerned about the parking anyway. So that could work, okay.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: Does that answer?
Farmakes: Yeah.
Mancino: Any other questions?
Mehl: Is the sporting goods store going to sell live bait for fishing?
Roman Roos: It's strictly universal sports.
Mehl: Okay. Because sometimes the live, if you offer live bait you've got, suddenly you've
got boat trailers in there. Could you turn that drawing over? Looking at the rooftop
equipment, it would appear that that car is shown in the westbound lane immediately south of
the building, which means that the car is as close to the building as it can get and your sight
angle is quite large. In other words that angle going up to the rooftop is fairly steep. What
happens when the vehicle is say eastbound and is 100 or 200 yards west of that location and
you're actually looking toward the comer or the long side of the building, in which case the
vehicle is much farther away from the building and that sight line is flatten out significantly.
Roman Roos: Very simply put, there's no way that I can design a building where I'm going
to hide all the rooftop's. It can't be done. Screening. That's what the screening ordinance is
for in the city of Chanhassen. I helped design that ordinance. What I'm saying to you is
we're trying to minimize the sight distance as much as we can but we still will require some
screening. On any building along Highway 5 that's going to be required. You just can't build
a parapet high enough and make it look pleasing to do that. So the intent, we took our sign
banner, or our sign board and made it as high as we could. We understand we're not going to
conceal those five rooftops ... and will be screened. Screen something to reflect, whether that
be 1 x 6 cedar or going to a standing seam metal. That's something we'll work out with staff
but it's going to have to be screened because the ordinance says it has to be anyhow. But
what we've got to do is minimize it Don the best we can. That's all I'm saying.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Mehl: Okay.
Mancino: But it can be the same colors as the parapet. Or the band around it.
Roman Roos: It probably would be. Probably this color. What I'd called the...
Joyce: I think you already asked this question. It's going to be retail sporting goods? There
won't be any boats for sale? In the parking lot.
Roman Roos: No boats. No bait. No worms.
Joyce: Okay.
Conrad: Roman, while you're up here, and maybe I'll ask staff to interact with this question.
The pedestrian access is primarily through the trail and not through a sidewalk system.
Aanenson: There is a sidewalk on there.
Conrad: Is there? On the north side?
Aanenson: It's on the other side.
Conrad: On which side?
Mancino: I didn't see it on 79th.
Aanenson: Well it would be across to Applebee's. Then you go by our portion. Then that's,
that's right. From Americana over to this property on the north side. So you could cross
then.
Mancino: So you're going to be able to go from Market all the way over to TH 101 on a
sidewalk on the north side of 79th?
Aanenson: Well it's not in front of the other building.
Mancino: There isn't one in front of Cheers, in that area yet.
Aanenson: No. No.
Mancino: Is that going to happen?
26
■
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
A] -Jaffa It continues here.
Mancino: And there isn't one in front of the motel at this point.
Aanenson: But the plans that we have show it on this side, but we'd have to double check on '
that.
Peterson: While they're looking at that, I've got another question regarding signage. On the
upper area, what's the plan for the type of signs?
Roman Roos: They're going to be uniform. We're still selecting the color on the signs but
they will be uniform. There was a question earlier about a pylon sign. Identification sign
only... identification sign and not a, our special of the week is such and such. If you look at
the other signage, I don't believe you have, the drawings did not have the pylon signs on it at
the time but that's why I set this up when you were having the discussion. You can see that
we're going within the sign ordinance. Less that 16 foot high. And these will be the
identification... I can't think of a particular sign but it would be, for example if it were a
Dairy Queen, it would be back lit with the Dairy Queen logo basically and that would be true
for all these. Somebody also asked the question, how many more tenants can go into that
space. The 2,500 ... is minimum space where it gets 60 foot deep and about 1,500 square foot.
That's a small... Ideally it's going to be ... worse case scenario. I can't imagine that ... But again
the two signs would be complimenting the building out of the same material that we're talking
about. Banding, back lit. They're a fluorescent type. Little identification signs within. And
this here would probably be lit also. The Hiway 5 Centre. We just had this...
Mancino: Will we see it back again with the signage?
Roman Roos: You will. The signs, yes you will.
Conrad: Roman, tell me how you're integrating this parking lot with the motel parking lot.
Roman Roos: Well if you remember the motel Ladd, it needs some work. There is a
median. It's a curb of sorts. Okay. That curb will have to come out. Now we talked with
Zamour about that. You run into a little problem Ladd with your cross over easement is ... you
will do this. You will do that. It doesn't work that way. So he wants, Larry Zamour who
runs the motel and wants a smooth transition... also patrons of the motel. And so there's got
to be some work done on that matter but I'm assuming the median's going, that concrete curb
will disappear and we'll...
27
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
t Conrad: I've got more problems with their parking lot than I do here, because the real issue,
you know, I don't know what. We're solving some smaller problems I think. What kind of
leverage do we have as you negotiate getting rid of the curb, which I think is a good, and I
like the cross easements but also I'd like to do, well. Is there any leverage at all?
Roman Roos: You can't control something that... responsibility. I mean I can't go to them
' and say hey Larry, you will do... The soft shoe effect and maybe an idea of upgrading this
parking lot. Maybe another wear course on it. I don't know. But I'm assuming all of that
might be possible. But I can't imagine any...
' Conrad: There's no benefit to them?
' Roman Roos: As long as they don't get an ice cream cone...
Conrad: It's too bad we can't break through his parking lot. What'd you find out about
' sidewalks?
Aanenson: This plan shows it. I've got to believe there is a sidewalk... we did put it on the
Americana and it' going across the city's property but I don't believe it goes across... There's a
facade treatment.
Conrad: That's really bad.
' Roman Roos: Ladd, you can't put...
Aanenson: We'd have to take something out to put the sidewalk in. You'd have to either ... or
t something to put a sidewalk in there.
Mancino: Well then there's room between the motel and the...
' Aanenson: Right, what I'm saying is...
' Mancino: But it's not there but there is room. So I do think that we should keep land then
so that the city at some point in the future... decides that, it thinks it's good for a sidewalk to
go in on the south side of 79th... Anyway, so that we have the right -of -way here. Is there
' right -of -way at this point so if we do want a sidewalk, that we'd able to do it?
Roman Roos: It's kind of like that previous...
' Mancino: Well first excuse me, I was asking staff.
1 28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Aanenson: There's always...
Mancino: You'd lose some of the parking.
Aanenson: Right. So I guess we'd have to look at what the joint parking situation is.
Mancino: Okay.
Peterson: ...trying to get cross traffic over to TH 5 so that the sidewalk is...
Mancino: And as we keep building together, keep making it more dense, I would hope that..
pedestrian traffic and sidewalks...
Peterson: There's an Applebee's going in there where the hotel traffic could walk to there.
Conrad: One last question. How did we get into this impervious surface problem?
Historically I mean, and I don't want a real long spiel but.
Aanenson: At one time the HRA wanted to buy it from Mr. Kornowski ... securing it and they
did not ... so they left it green. So there's an opportunity again to improve the aesthetic value...
Conrad: It just makes sense then.
Farmakes: So will that area be landscaped...?
Aanenson: That would be our condition.
Mancino: But it first has to be approved by HRA.
Aanenson: It's all contingent upon basically what the HRA, that's correct. If not, then it will
probably be back here.
Mancino: Any other questions at this time? Did you get your answer Ladd?
Conrad: Yeah.
Mancino: I do have one more question. On my drawings, and I first will make the statement.
I was concerned about the east elevation, and that is that this roof line goes all the way across
the east.
29
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
' Roman Roos: ...this is what it looks like.
Mancino: But you can see the east side from Highway 5. So this just looks like the back of
a building.
Roman Roos: We don't have any...
' Mancino: Okay. But that's what finishes off the building is that roof line.
' Roman Roos: ...it's the mechanical unit...
Mancino: It's an aesthetic one for our community because we're going to be on Highway 5
and that's what we're going to see ... you don't really have a back door. That's hard when you
have that much frontage on Highway 5.
Roman Roos: And if I located ... I'd have a real problem ... and in order to not have a back
door, how do you face it? Well we try to...
' Mancino: Well I would like to see more of the aesthetics on the east side also because I do
think that's very, very visible from Highway 5.
' Roman Roos: All I can tell you Nancy... and what I'm doing is I'm doing a trade -off.. The
only thing I can is ... my history, my record in Chanhassen... there is an economic trade -off. I've
been on both sides. I understand what you're saying...
Mancino: Okay, thank you for answering that. Thank you. May I have a motion to open
this for a public hearing please?
Skubic moved, Comad seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience wishing to address the
Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion
to close the public hearing.
Comad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Craig, comments.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Peterson: I'm confused. I like the building, in and of itself. I think the issue of the patio can
be addressed. I don't really have a strong feeling of whether it's towards the south side or the
east side. I think it's, you know preferential I guess it would be on the east side, giving more
landscaping to the south. What I'm concerned about and what I don't know if I can have
answered tonight by staff is that, the idea of a sidewalk I think needs to have our attention
drawn to it, more than what we have presented here tonight. I think as I shared before, I
think the idea is that we want to create a downtown that we want to integrate more of the
areas within the city, specifically being Village on the Ponds across Highway 5. We've got
an area now on 78th that's got sidewalk and part of it doesn't on the other part. I guess what
I'd like to get a feel for is whether or not it is potentially feasible that we get sidewalk along
that whole street. If it's not feasible, then I wouldn't recommend we delete those 10 parking
spots and put a sidewalk even in there. So I guess what I'm formulating here is a question to
staff that is it reasonable for us to have a sidewalk along that whole street sometime down the
road.
Aanenson: We can look at that... If that's going to be part of your recommendation to pass
that onto the City Council to see how we can achieve that, sure.
Peterson: With that in mind I would make a, I would move to approve with that exception,
or that caveat.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: I like the site plan. I think it's nice. I don't have too many issues with it. The
patio is neat. I like your involving people and buildings so I don't have the same concern
with the screening. I think we should. It's an opportunity to screen but again I'd really like
staffs direction on bringing patios and people into Chanhassen and into our buildings, which
we don't do much of. I think what I see is good for screening. The parking lot, I just think
everything's okay. The issues that I have, I agree with Craig. The public access. Pedestrian
access is an issue on that whole street, so I don't get it right now so I think point number 17
or someplace, we have to direct staff to review that and advise us. I think taking parking
spots away from the applicant will hurt the project. I don't know where that ends up. The
integration, if I can say that. The integration of the parking lot again is another issue and I
don't think we have any control over it but it seems like an opportunity to fix some problems
there so that's, Madam Chair, those are my only comments. I think staff has summarized
their points very well in the staff report.
Mancino: Thank you. Kevin.
31
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Joyce: My biggest point was once again the sidewalk. Incorporating this project into 79th
' Street. I think that hasn't been looked at as much as all of this ... be from Highway 5 but let's
get 79th Street in there too. I think a sidewalk is really just major... work that in as Craig
said, I think it's a great project. But let's get 79th Street, let's get that sidewalk in.
' Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: Everything was basically said I think in reading through the staffs report and
basically ... I would like the sidewalk on the north side. I understand the... we have to be real
' careful...
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm more concerned about the south side because I guess because I have yet to see
too many pedestrians in Chanhassen, even though we continue to build sidewalks. Through a
' pragmatic sense, I think when we look back through all the work we've done on Highway 5,
this is an opportunity to continue that. I think a patio aesthetically would be much better to
the southeast which could be surrounded by whatever the city does as far as landscaping goes.
' Also it affords more of a room opportunity to create more of a layered landscape. The parking
spots that were talked about, these are short term retail stores. There's pizza type stuff that
they're picking up and taking off again. There's adjacent parking lots right next to it.
' Certainly a couple of parking spots there with a south extension where that turn around is...
There's an opportunity there to extend that landscaping up without really creating any
additional loss. I think the city should look at that. Certainly if our tenant on the south end
' is a sporting goods store, there's certainly room there to extend that. I hope the city can
hopefully work that out in the ordinance and look at that option. I think that would be in line
with what we've asked other applicants to do. That's it. Oh excuse me. I have one more
' item on here. I think that your comment about extending the roof extension on the east side
and perhaps looking at ... windows is something to look at because of the nature of that, it's
almost a peninsula going out into the highway. It has sight lines everywhere so, and it is I
' think a valid point.
Mancino: Thank you. Don.
' Mehl: Yeah, I think bringing that patio around to the southeast or east side here would,
' maybe with some heavy landscaping or something around that east side and the patio would
help to improve what I think is kind of a plain appearance on that east side. I think that
could help a great deal. Aesthetically I think the building is pretty well done if you do
' something with the east side. Other than that I agree pretty much with the comments. I don't
have anything additional.
1 32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Mancino: Thank you. I agree with the comments also made. Specifically I would like to see
a sidewalk on the north side. If to me that means pulling down the building to the south a
little bit, allowing for a sidewalk because I can see pedestrians or cyclists wanting to be on
79th Street cycling, not on Highway 5 right next to the highway. But it would be much safer,
much more of a charming street to go down 79th Street than on Highway 5. So although I
would like to keep the landscaping on Highway 5, the building come down a little bit, but
make way for a 4 foot sidewalk on the north side. That seems to make sense to me. And
also I do like the idea of the patio on the east side of the building. That's great. It's
welcoming as you go down Highway 5 to that area. And I would also like to see the east
side of the building, because it is a view. That side of the building is going to be viewed by
all of us that go west on Highway 5, to see what architectural enhancements on that east side.
Whether that be an extended roof line. Whether it be something done with that patio space.
Whether it be something done with landscaping, but not landscaping that's going to look good
in 10 or 20 years but right now. And so that it is attractive. That's our public space for
Highway 5 and the views from that public space should be aesthetically pleasing because
we're on it a lot. Those of us who commute all over the city. What else? It would just be
wonderful if something could be worked out with the motel and the parking lot. Again
making that, an incentive for the motel people to want to come over to this wonderful retail
space and eat and carouse and whatever. If there's something that can be worked out there. I
guess no other comments. We will see signage Sharmin. That will come back in front of us?
Al -7aff: I can bring it back.
Aanenson: If you wanted to see it, sure.
Mancino: Yeah. We would also like to see it, when it does comes back please, with the
materials again so we can keep it top of the line with the materials being used on the
building. May I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure, I would make a motion Madam Chair. One question, and maybe help staff
before I make a motion. It may help staff and the applicant figure this out. Would you give
up impervious surface to get a sidewalk in? Probably. That's probably what we would do.
So there's going to be a motion in here about reviewing the sidewalk but I guess the point is,
that there's a plan. That there should be a sidewalk there. It's just sort of, I'm just amazed
we don't have that planned. That a sidewalk goes down there. But there has to be a plan and
if this fits that plan, then it should be, then we should make it happen and we probably as a
commission would agree with an addition to the impervious surface ratio. Madam Chair, I
make the following motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site
plan review #96 -4 as shown on the site plan dated April 12, 1996 subject to the conditions in
33
I I
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
' the staff report, 1 through 16 with the addition . Point number 17. That the staff is to review
the impact and the merit of a sidewalk on the north side of the parcel and make it's
recommendations to the City Council when this gets to the City Council. Number 18. That
' the applicant would review the architectural, would consider, would present architectural
enhancements to the City Council and the planning staff for the east side of the building
when this does reach the City Council in two weeks, I assume. Point number 18, which is an
t invalid point but it will, I'd like to make it anyway is to have staff and the applicant somehow
figure out to make sure that when we integrate the parking lots with the motel, that we do the
best job we can to do that integration and also to maybe soften the view of the parking lot at
' the motel. And I understand that we have no leverage whatsoever but I'd like to put that in
there as a point.
' Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment to item 19 and that is that the applicant
supply the staff and City Council with a detailed landscape plan of the patio area. What that
patio area is going to look like. The materials used. The landscape material used and how it
' will, what do I want to say, screen from Highway 5 and be aesthetically pleasing.
Conrad: Yeah, I'd accept that. I'd add that to point number, condition number 15 in the staff
' report.
Mancino: Is there a second?
' Joyce: I'll second that.
' Mancino: Any discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
' Plan Review #96 -4 as shown on the site plan dated April 12, 1996, 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. Signage criteria:
' a. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject
to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
' b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of each wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
c. All signs require a separate permit.
d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights.
f. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height.
h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
i. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet
and a height of 16 feet.
j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop
sign must be posted on each driveway at the exit points of the site. A detailed sign
plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided
prior to requesting a sign permit.
3. Applicant must provide one landscaped peninsula in the parking lot. Screening of the
parking lot and the east elevation must be increased. Screening may include berms,
ornamental, and evergreen trees.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary '
financial securities as required for landscaping.
5. Fire Marshal conditions: ,
a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04 -1991 (Fire
Department Notes to be included on site plans), copy enclosed. '
b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07 -1991 (Pre -
Fire plan), copy enclosed. '
c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992,
(Premise Identification), copy enclosed. '
35 1
1
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
d. Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34 -1993, (Water service
' installation for commercial and indushial buildings), copy enclosed.
t e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36 -1994,
(Combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed.
f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40 -1995, (Fim
Spinkler system), copy enclosed.
' g. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on the water service line.
Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
' 6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
' 7. Relocate the two required accessible parking spaces along the center of the building.
Relocate the accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side
of the building as discussed in the attached Building Official memo.
' 8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
'
9.
The applicant shall supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year
storm event. Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be
warranted.
'
10.
The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the
site.
'
11.
Utility installation will require permits through the city's building department. Gate
valves will be required on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building.
'
12.
Cross - access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot /drive aisle.
'
13.
Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City HRA approving the lease of the
land located east of the subject site.
'
14.
The hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed 65 %.
I
1 36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
15. The patio area may be moved to the east of the subject property and onto the city
property pending approval of the HRA. The applicant shall supply the staff and City
Council with a detailed landscape plan of the patio area
16. The parking lot must maintain a 25 foot setback along the north and south.
17. The staff shall review the impact and the merit of a sidewalk on the north side of the
parcel and make it's recommendations to the City Council.
18. The applicant review possible architectural enhancements and present to the City
Council and the planning staff for the east side of the building.
19. The applicant shall try to integrate the Hiway 5 Centre paridng lot with the motel
parldng lot.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: Just one reminder that the... Coalition, if any of you were interested in going on
the 29th. It's on New Urbanism. It's only 2 hours over the lunch hour. It's downtown
Minneapolis...
Mancino: Who's speaking Kate at that? Do you remember?
Aanenson: An architect on new urbanism from California. I can't remember his name.
Mancino: Okay. Downtown Minneapolis, I'll go.
Aanenson: Pardon me? He's downtown, yes. Okay, I'll put you down.
Mancino: Downtown. Put me down. I'm downtown.
Aanenson: That's all I had for new business.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:, Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated May 1, 1996 as presented.
37