The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Perkins Family Restaurant: Site Plan Review.1 CITY OF PC DATE: 6/7/95 6/21/95 CC DATE: 7/10/95 CASE #: SP #94 -6 By: Generous:v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 1 Z a J � Q � �8 cn I I J Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 2 The applicant previously received site plan approval for this project. However, the applicant is proposing significant changes to the building elevations and roof treatment that warrant a new site plan review. The applicant is proposing a 4,500 square foot Perkins Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Third Addition. The design of Perkins is an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (E.I.F.S.), which is a nonload bearing exterior wall cladding system consisting of an insulation board, an adhesive and /or mechanical attachment of the insulation board to the substrate, an internally reinforced base coat on the face of the insulation board, a protective finish applied to the surface of the base coat and applicable accessories that interact to form an energy efficient exterior wall, with ceramic tile accent panels at the sign panels and on the adjacent columns. The primary building color is a brownish tan (Stolit R color 04433) with a sandy/beige accent (Stolit R color 04432). Columns are located at the sign panels, on building corners, and the customer entrance area. The building is 19 feet high at the top of the parapet with a 4 3/4 foot high standing seam pitched roof element. Multi - colored window canopy awnings are provided over the windows on the southwest corner, west and north elevations of the building. An accent band runs below the metal roof cap, above and below the windows, and in the vertical reveals on the building columns. Neon tubing encircles the building below the parapet crown and around the sign panels. The applicant's previous plan was considerably different. The applicant proposed a 5,000 square foot Perkins Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Third Addition. The design of Perkins was stucco with a ceramic tile accent band around the entire building. Columns were spaced 15 apart. The building was 17' 8" high with a 4%2 foot high standing seam mansard pitched roof element on all building elevations. Window canopy awnings were provided on two sides of the building. An accent band ran above and below the ceramic tile accent panels and approximately 2 1 /2 feet above ground around the entire building. The development, as revised, meets the building materials and design criteria established as part of the PUD. The Highway 5 standards require the use of a pitched roof as well as screening for rooftop equipment from the roadways. The applicant has incorporated pitched ' roof elements on all elevations of the building topped with a parapet wall. Staff believes these two elevations meet the intent of the ordinance. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. The ' applicant is proposing the painting of cinder block for the trash enclosure which is prohibited. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right -of -ways. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 3 Staff believes that the plan complies with the Highway 5 standards and the PUD requirements established for this site. Staff is recommending approval of the revised site plan 95 -2 subject to the conditions of the staff report. The City platted Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition on October 10, 1994. That subdivision was the replat of Chanhassen Retail Addition Outlot B. Outlot B was created with the "Target" plat for future development. The city created two outlots with the Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition. Outlot A was retained by the City for landscaping and gateway features. Outlot B was sold to Ryan Companies. Ryan Companies replatted Outlot B, as part of Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, into 3 lots for Perkins, Taco Bell, and Boston Market restaurants. The Perkins on Lot 1, Block 1 is 1.37 acres and includes a 5,000 square foot building with 85 parking stalls and Taco Bell on Lot 3, Block 1 is 0.84 and includes a 1,800 square foot building with 34 parking stalls. The subdivision and site plan approval for Perkins and Taco Bell was given on October 10, 1994. The Boston Market restaurant is a 3,100 square foot structure on Lot 2, Block 1, which is 0.95 acres. The site plan for Boston Market was approved on February 13, 1995. The applicant is proposing a 4,500 square foot Perkins Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Third Addition. The design of Perkins is an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (E.I.F.S.), which is a nonload bearing exterior wall cladding system consisting of an insulation board, an adhesive and /or mechanical attachment of the insulation board to the substrate, an internally reinforced base coat on the face of the insulation board, a protective finish applied to the surface of the base coat and applicable accessories that interact to form an energy efficient exterior wall, with ceramic tile accent panels at the sign panels and on the adjacent columns. Columns are located at the sign panels, building corners, and the customer entrance area. The building is 19 feet high at the top of the parapet with a 4 3/4 foot high standing seam pitched roof element on all elevations. Window canopy awnings are provided over the windows on the southwest corner, west and north elevations of the building. An accent band runs below the metal roof cap, above and below the windows, and in vertical reveals on the building columns. r 1 Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following development standards were approved with the first phase of the Chanhassen Retail Center. These standards are to be used for the entire PUD or any additional phases. I a. Intent L� The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the City's CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. 1. Day Care Center 2. Standard Restaurants 3. Health and recreation clubs 4. Retail 5. Financial Institutions, including drive -in service 6. Newspaper and small printing offices 7. Veterinary Clinic 8. Animal Hospital 9. Offices 10. Health Care Facility 11. Garden Center (completely enclosed) 12. Bars and Taverns 13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) * Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views FINDING: The use is permitted in the PUD district. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 5 c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right -of -way, parking along right -of -ways shall be set back 20 feet. Street Building Parking Setback Setback West 78th Target 55 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet Hwy. 5 Target 120 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 15 feet FINDING: The location of Perkins meets these standards. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box USE Lot Area Bldgs Bldg Sq Ft Parking Coverage % Target 10.29 ac 1 117,165 585 76.3 Outlot B 2nd Add 4.62 ac. 0 0 0 0 Outlot A Landscaping 1.46 ac. 0 0 0 0 Perkins 1.37 ac. 1 4,500 82 Taco Bell 0.84 AC. 1 1,800 34 Boston Market 0.95 1 3,100 52 TOTAL 16.31 4 126,565 753 66 - uumuiarive Lots 1, 1, and J, Block 1 is m percent impervious FINDING: Complies with the development standards established as part of the PUD. 1 Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 6 e. Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 8. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target was the first store to build and they establish or set the theme.) 9. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line. FINDING: The development meets the building materials and design criteria established as part of the PUD. The Highway 5 standards require the use of a pitched roof as well as screening for rooftop equipment from the roadways. The applicant has incorporated pitched roof elements on all elevations of the building topped with a parapet wall. Staff believes these elevations meet the intent of the ordinance. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. The applicant is proposing the painting of cinder block for the trash enclosure which is prohibited. Trash Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 7 enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right -of -ways. The applicant must also provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. The applicant has incorporated all of the important architectural features in their revised plans. Because the column areas project out from the structure, staff believes that the use of recessed areas for shading will not be necessary. Additionally, staff has agreed with the applicant that incorporation of accent panels in all columns would make the architecture too "busy" which would detract, rather than enhance the structure. f. Site Landscaping and Screening In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and /or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. FINDING: The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan for the development. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles; delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete colorado green spruce, jackman potentilla (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide I Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 8 foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration /irrigation tubing, see figures 11 -2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. g. Signage One freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings in Outlot B should be limited to monument signs. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. 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 all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDING: The applicant has met the intent of the PUD standards for the site. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. The applicant is also proposing the installation of a 70 foot high flag pole to be located on the east side of the structure. Staff is recommending that the maximum size of the flag be limited to 80 square feet consistent with a pylon sign in a commercial district. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 9 h. Lighting 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than lh candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. Light poles shall be Cortex, shoe box light standards. FINDING: The development complies with the lighting requirements established in the PUD. Lights shall incorporate photoelectric cells for automatic activation. Access to the site shall be provided via Target Lane and an internal private street system. The Fire Marshal has noted that one additional "No Parking - Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In addition, where "No Parking Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants. The Planning Commission was concerned about providing pedestrian access into the site. Staff believes that the sidewalk along Target Lane provides adequate pedestrian access to the site. If the city were to require an internal sidewalk, it would be necessary to sacrifice some of the landscape area and tree plantings, another city goal, to accommodate this sidewalk. Any additional pedestrian crosswalks, except at the entrance to the project, would not be prudent or safely designed without additional stop signs. Inevitably, individuals will take the most direct path into the site. Staff is recommending that a five foot concrete sidewalk be provided from Powers Boulevard to the northwest corner of the parking lot. This sidewalk, in conjunction with the other sidewalks being provided, will permit pedestrian access from all directions into Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. r J L� Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 10 LANDSCAPING ' The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan for the development. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles; delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete colorado green spruce, jackman potentilla (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation ' plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figures 11- 2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. ' ('TRADING /DRAINAGE The site in general will be graded by the developer, Ryan Companies. It appears the site plan ' is compatible with the proposed site grades. The parking lot drainage also appears to be compatible with the master site plan for Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. The only change ' that staff sees on the plan would be the location of the sidewalk adjacent to Target Lane. The sidewalk should be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe crossing movements for pedestrians. ' Erosion control measures on the site have been installed by the developer with the initial site grading. This applicant should be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site ' until the site has been fully revegetated. I,I THTIN T /SI TNA T The development complies with the lighting requirements established in the PUD. Lights shall incorporate photoelectric cells for automatic activation. ' The applicant has met the intent of the PUD standards for the site. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the ' property line. No backlit awnings no be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 11 In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light r I 0 Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 ' Page 12 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 meets the intent and standards established as part ' of the Highway 5 and the PUD standards imposed on the project as well as site plan requirements. The Planning Commission met on June 7, 1995 to review the proposed site plan. The ' Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant to revise the plans based on staff recommendations. In addition, the Commission requested that staff look at the pedestrian access into the site. 1 1 1 The Planning Commission met on June 21, 1995 to review the revised plans submitted by the applicant. By a vote of 4 for and 0 against, the Planning Commission approved a motion recommending approval of the site plan. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: "The City Council approves Site Plan #94 -6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The sidewalk shall be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe crossing movements for pedestrians. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the site has been fully revegetated. 3. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department. 4. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 5. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 13 6. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and /or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 7. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right -of -ways. 8. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles; delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete colorado green spruce, jackman potentilla (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration /irrigation tubing, see figures 11 -2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. 9. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. II L 10. The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag I pole location shall comply with sign placement limitations. 11. One additional "No Parking - Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the ' building. In addition, where "No Parking Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants. ' 12. The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. ' Perkins Restaurant Site Plan 95 -2 June 7, 1995 PC Update June 30, 1995 Page 14 13. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk on Powers Boulevard to the northwest corner of the parking lots." 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/23/95 2. Proposed Building Elevation (front and rear) 3. Proposed Building Elevation (left and right) 4. Proposed Roof Plan 5. Approved Building Elevation 6. Figure 11 -2, Aeration/Irrigation Tubing 7. Public hearing notice and property owners 8. Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 1995 9. Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 1995 MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Bob Generous, Planner H FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: May 23, 1995 SUBJECT: 94 -5 SPR (Perkins Family Restaurant, Guy Payne) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAY 0 8 19 9 5, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. ° for the above referenced project. Analysis: Due to winter conditions the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) has provisions for access to rooftop equipment. MSBC 1300.4500 states in part, "A stairway complying with UBC Chapter 10 or a Stair leading to a scuttle or bulkhead in the roof..." must be installed. This requirement precludes the use of a ladder to access rooftop equipment. An exterior stairway to access rooftop equipment must comply with UBC Chapter 10. An interior stairway may comply with UBC Chapter 10 or the specific requirements listed in MSBC 1300.4500 for a roof 'access stair. Recommendation: 1. Provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. g:A sa let y \cak \4nemos\i)lany)erkins.bg 1 I I 1 I m n+ — ?"-" — 4• avc .l 31 FRONT ELEVATION - SCALE: I/4' . I' -0" 'J PROPOSED PLAN rrr' a AUJNiN COLOR PATTERN AA SCALE I/t" i' -0" II I IL II I _ rP w. oa �u� I 1 I I I ufa. �} \.� `C�ra rrD(r e� • _ 1 • m• 1• CLOY.IRE RMGE \ \\ AW 6EAL.vR I - FMISNED MiL. ER s SCUPPER ELEVATION A.4 SGALE� 1 -I!]" 1' -0' I I nmi � .umny J S 7 w Q v I I l OREAR ELEVATION 44 SCALE: /4• . I' -0 r 7 i I I I N I I I I \ L ` firms /rrlM e!+o ^� � u�. [teM e� W li�r•J J �— M'[ifad 4'rtrvcw emo ow.�u� .tiwi� T I .i°ra`nR ma wwlw a .«o :.i wu PROPOSED PLAN � ELEVATION OF SIC,N PANEL tia Y sum 1/r - 1• -0• 71— - - - - - r 1 1 ® I 1 ----------- — L -L-L- ll 1 m O �>, 1 i 1 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 7 r 4 1 O O K d 0 2 4 2 ti U a 11 H KllaFil NUC LLLVAIION @. AJ SGVL_ 1/4 - F -O• _. � m m m m m ITAR = = = = m = = = CO"I C UT- 17-1 slope TA11411 b"S LATPN wtPV.r ! 2 D.O. al.c elnC'<cwcMO. av NVAi[¢ W0,¢ O P I'f I z OVERF GRAIN 17' -1 A.2 SCALE: I -!/2- = I' -P BUiLr -uP 400E 17'- 1. i(lILS: UST eoM 1a ,[O SIir a DaNn PIPG �I�r'4QIn41aJO _ 1.11 R Rmr Oa.VV° rvPIUL UNO�" I I rW11C — Wn4 CWIPIN4 J e ! I AIVWA to L40[R a ROOF DRAIN 0.2 SCAIP: I- I/2" = I-c, � IMw „ 4s ra i _ _ _ � vooD etDCeln4 rp¢ ¢trzrL II BV.21 -UP eoorlN4 II II II r RK.O INSU II � -5/ Ili I D[GK K T PIPIN CURB / HOOD DETAIL A2 SCALE: 1 -1/2 = I' -P LAS PIP, TR-. 4.4.tr ¢oP' OaiS AT 15 - T S AT r PIPE SUPPORT DETAIL \, L,2 NOT TO SCALL ROOF PLAN I. IT IS S.— 1111 I—PO 1131 1 OF PI, ROOFINQ CONTRACTOR TO COOQOINATL _T LOCATIONS OF M,CHANICAL ,QUIP. P[NGTQATIONS A5 50NG OP-N4 HAY OCCUR THAT AR[ NOT SHOWN, 2. R,FGR TO STRUCTVeAL DRAWINGS FOR E UCI NVAC ANO ,OUIPM,M LOCATIONS. S. S,L MLCHANICAL PLAN FOR []UCT FNAC ANO LOUIPMENT LOCATIONS, 4.,L,C. CONN. BY LC. (TYP,) 5. DRN.4 CONN. BY P.C. I'P.I 5. I,— TO PLUMB. DWQ5. roe GAS PIPING IIYP.) I UJ.RO K NA / ¢r1 IJ 4 rtv� P rA�RHW ' -' a CNO¢5 i ��R.90R • Iz V.C. — lAl w „ IA� T / Irr a�B wt u ffljff,lilllfz� OS CONN,C,ON RU[ x',ni I Z 1015T BLARING ALON4 BY P.CINPKALI IT'N. f04 ALL A/C U11151 MI5 MALL . 14'- 1' TIP OF ROOF . 14' -T TOP OF PARAPLT (NP.) >• Iq' -P F X J -APYO. 02VN r0 —t — AIR °PRIN,O e,C,P10e r / INT AK E BY P.C. (IvPi .LL 1 _ YTAKE LLNNOS ].5 10N Uxi & —,Lfc CONN[CnON IN 14' HICK CU A RB / C ® BY GC IIVPICAL) ®® ° A 0 OU H000 _SLC DN / JOIST BVRINO ALON4 PE4 Fi. rH15 WALL 15' -I' TOP OF ROOF 17' -T BUILT -UP ROOF TOP OF PA4APGi (ttP.l - Iq' -P 5fI SPLC"TOAD0N5 I1NN0% 10 TON A/C UND NTH I4' MIN LURE r T V 4TALE A40 05A HOOP Q AJR FTI 1 1 5[L 4/A1 C O,T LON 1,MP R,MOTG R[FRI4[4ATKK1 2. FOR w PIP, SUPPORT D,T. Hu SECTION NO o RAGS \ 5,2 5/A2 n r1A5 nw uNH— 1 ° Iz x Ir Gore. DN To wsla4seEe. i - ra N e v B w ve[D,p ore. — IF i0 M000 . 1 SuFRgqYe a % HIC,H FAry — 1 �I I t M1W. 1 1�1'rir e. 16G WIRIII /' HICM CURB IUI. AND yENT 645E —T. prR. H-B a I Lv L PIl`.NUYS DIR I< X y 5CM 01 o0P R IIct SL4 \ LM T, AR L Ij INTAKE CON , UNIT ON 10 HOOD .J / I1NN0% 10 ION A/C WITH 14' HKN CDRB AND 014 HOpp 6 / x 4 P4GSSURL —T. ^ r 4En0TL COND IUNIIS L4 o+[s INt Glee ,UGt [ ,0 R` wK'KMt0 !0 V..e a ROOF TOP CURB DETAIL A.2 NOT i0 SGLE 4) PIRU -WALL SCUPPERS 0 O O 4 P iRUTED RAMS R R,L m COOL[R COND, UNIT UNITS Q (',F NERAL NOTES: \ I'IrT _OP O ROOF V F PARAPGT R111 onm uxt o•rwu uoar so ry yo EXTERM ELEVATION nvbtm nu•.e ,utt KrrL roorro - ,u.R e.+t� l.• .•ewm tern i LV: AROTr .r,• — EPn�e u pnEOT rwow) rapT tur.o �- reEOn r cv: raver oro - mwvi._ ra ,ntr l wRn.e ,00.r�nn'rTton - Ea , /r,3 EXTEFWR ELEVATION . / r 1 1 1' i 11 � I II, P. M�� Jv� o r • a ,Jd ) tK • rLmTr ~- � L N — rRmoo nrw. )cu, MRK ttoEr �- tarK T.7 AadT \ OdIT tronrrR }�LCOrr s�r�o a 7 LLIi a o eA. •ormy e R- rd o»D rcaon � ryuD fr �Ir!. IIl! i I lm mm 1 s E m"m ELEVATION r t)+• t-- wo ; ufs A6dT ,K � M eon a as.[ I 'GY I FL I—T ) / Fa, Ttgl'N A4.3 Ig16 EQ M.J ERTEI" ELEVATION • tr -r i - - -b1 b MR , u u raver woi uJ - L4S i u s,+�ciuua " 3/16 =1' - 0" x ro,anaE" Loo wo mra4 IVl T»N'µ A4M I i fib. Rt D V Or W ronr3 r run ran t»iva •A— i - - • rr Y, u rt+tctuu t _ � RTttEm = I1TY .W APPROVED PLAN a L Card a..* tnA•.s.r R'^GI Ir r►aw AJJ. �R t Pit 9811 CCNiRACrpt 91rll 02 9 1- N O 0 e g w I Z w Y O Z ¢ 2 2 oMM •7 DP CtLLTOD m RCG -M' 13 MAY 94 EraT 3 r 13 niorcT sm tro. 1386 I Aa.3 M ' M m m m m m ..` m m= ■r mm m m m m m - i i' - k k i� L 2.1. ; truck. Rock up to the bottom of the covers reduces debris collecting in the planter. Hardware cloth (coarse metal screening) under the covers has been used to keep rats out; but the wire must be inspected frequently to prevent girdling. Perforated PVC pipe (100- to 125 -mm, 4- to 5 -in. diameter and 0.6- to 1 -m, 2- to 3 -ft long) is commonly put in two or four corners of a planter opening for aeration and irrigation. As the people in Europe learned, dead -end aeration holes in the soil are seldom adequate. Connecting the bottoms of two or more of the vertical aeration pipes, however, allows air flow through the tubes, greatly increas- ing the oxygen concentration and aeration effectiveness (Kopinga 1985) (Fig. 11 -2). Figure 11 -2 Aeration in pavement plantings can be increased by joining two vertical aeration pipes across the bottom of the planting hole, one pair each near opposite sides of the planting hole. ,Oxygen concentration in the pipes will be ten times greater than in vertical pipes alone (Kopinga 1985). Aeration could be further increased by having aeration risers as shown in Fig. 11 -3 also serve as protective stanchions for the tree. If the soil is compacted around the planter opening and under the pavement: aeration may also be increased and roots directed downward by drilling or water jetting sloping irrigation and aeration holes under and out from the root ball an under the pavement. Within a year or two the holes are filled with roots. s Another pavement - planting scheme is also being used in the Netherlands.. _ sentially, a planting hole is estdblished within a planting hole (Kopinga 1985, m fied by Urban's [1989) survey) (Fig. 11 -3). Excavate a hole approximately 0._ (2 ft) deep to a volum "of 3.5 m' (120 ft') or more. The shape of the hole will depen �' } on the space available. All but the finished planter opening (1 to 1.2 -m, 3 to �i.. diameter or square) will be paved over. The outer portion of the hole "is filled. a mixture of coarse lava slag (80 -150 mm, [3 -6 in.] diameter) and `tree soil' ratio of about 2:1 (volume:volume, v /v)" (Kopinga 1985). A tree is planted in 248 Chap. 11 Special Planting Sltuati0 ti ` • � /~' /iri / %/� Figure 11 -2 Aeration in pavement plantings can be increased by joining two vertical aeration pipes across the bottom of the planting hole, one pair each near opposite sides of the planting hole. ,Oxygen concentration in the pipes will be ten times greater than in vertical pipes alone (Kopinga 1985). Aeration could be further increased by having aeration risers as shown in Fig. 11 -3 also serve as protective stanchions for the tree. If the soil is compacted around the planter opening and under the pavement: aeration may also be increased and roots directed downward by drilling or water jetting sloping irrigation and aeration holes under and out from the root ball an under the pavement. Within a year or two the holes are filled with roots. s Another pavement - planting scheme is also being used in the Netherlands.. _ sentially, a planting hole is estdblished within a planting hole (Kopinga 1985, m fied by Urban's [1989) survey) (Fig. 11 -3). Excavate a hole approximately 0._ (2 ft) deep to a volum "of 3.5 m' (120 ft') or more. The shape of the hole will depen �' } on the space available. All but the finished planter opening (1 to 1.2 -m, 3 to �i.. diameter or square) will be paved over. The outer portion of the hole "is filled. a mixture of coarse lava slag (80 -150 mm, [3 -6 in.] diameter) and `tree soil' ratio of about 2:1 (volume:volume, v /v)" (Kopinga 1985). A tree is planted in 248 Chap. 11 Special Planting Sltuati0 ti NN PAR ' � > J P A NOTICE OF PUBLIC a PO Y WJ°o HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION 0- m U MEETING � Y 0 Wednesday, JUN E 7 1995 E wEs at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive W Y. le Project: Perkins Restaurant Site Plan Q i ERN oFtivETATE' NIGH Developer: Guy Payne, Perkins ' Location: Corner of Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street _ PARK Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a site plan for a 5,000 square foot restaurant on 1.38 acres of ' property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition, Perkins Family Restaurant. ' What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. ' During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an 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. Q uestions 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 Bob at 937 -1900 ext. 141. 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. Chanhassen Villager May 1995. ' Notice of this public hearing has been published m th e C g on y 26 , t an R. Johnson Const. 8984 Zachary Lane I aple Grove, MN 55369 -0028 kankar O. Box 27300 New Hope, MN 55427 t Dayton Hudson Corp. T -862 1 operty Tax Dept. 7 Nicollet Mall inneapolis, MN 55402 1 1 Roberts Automatic Products 880 Lake Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 T. F. James Company Suite 500 6640 Shady Oak Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Lutheran Church of Living Christ Box 340 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Beddor Enterprises /E. J. Carlson 6950 Galpin Road Excelsior, MN 55331 I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION, PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURANT, GUY PAYNE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Bob, have you had time to make a thorough review of this new plan? When did you receive it? Generous: Well he had tried to fax it today but I just got it when the applicant showed up for the public hearing. Mancino: Okay. So you have not gone through and done a thorough review? Generous: Right. Mancino: So that you could tell us whether it meets all the Highway 5. Generous: Well it appears to. There's some other architectural features that I spelled out in the Alternate 2 recommendation that I wasn't able to ascertain whether or not those had been incorporated also. But maybe the applicant would be able to answer some of those questions. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Did the commissioners have any questions of staff at this point? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation please? Guy Payne: Sure. My name's Guy Payne. I'm the Manager of Architectural Services with Perkins. To start off I'll just show you a photograph of this architectural building, what we're 1 1 r r r 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 doing with that before we add the metal roof. That gives you really the two views of which we're pretty much ... I guess you're going to ... tell you where, how this evolved. We started out with that older building. It took us some, over 2 years ago. It's taken that long to ever get the project going. A lot has to do with the acquisition of the DOT property which is part of our's and all of that to get the project off the ground. In that meantime, that building we originally submitted, we're not building any longer and we've gone to what we felt a more exciting, particularly interior and exterior. A little more exciting and more intimate dining experience. So we went ahead and bid it out with the older building. The price came in quite a bit over budget so that's why we re- submitted with a different building since the other one was approved. So in order to make, just a little bit about this building. Some of the exterior, it's kind of obvious but something we've really worked on is to come one of our phototypical elements is this arched opening appears the same as on this. It's become a new standard for us, and we're even doing it all over Minneapolis in exterior remodels. Incorporating this same element so that's become a vital part of our exterior design that we're using. The interior of this building is also, that was one thing that, particularly our Chairman of the Board really wanted to get away from, the interior of our, the first building we presented was just, you came in and you had one large dining room where this, with the corner entry, you come in and it provides two different views. A lot of separate dining spaces and a lot more intimate dining space instead of just a big cafeteria type space. This is has not it exactly but it's similar interior that would go into that. A new interior scheme that we've come up with. I mean it's not that exact building but it will be all the same type decor. Same finishes. Going back to, but we felt this building, obviously those two sides are the most important views and the other two could be a little lax so in order to, if I had gotten the information sooner I probably would have had the information back to you all sooner but I was trying to redesign the building to incorporate as much of the changes as I could and still keep it somewhat within the budget. So I've got a handout I'll... and you can see it and hopefully it will clarify some questions. I've got... copies. In each it has a roof plan which you can see some new roof areas that we've added and then the elevations, revised elevations. So I'll give you each a copy. And the reason I'm showing this building is just for the, we've gone to this to replace, just to acquaint you all, we're using this stripe in it. ...which is what we've gone... Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Payne, can you explain again what we're looking at here. Guy Payne: Okay. This is basically the same. It's the typical, we call it 9048 Prototype is the building we're proposing and those two sides are more aesthetically pleasing. Mancino: Architecturally pleasing? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Guy Payne: Yeah. So and you really can't see the other two sides in this photograph. We can't ever get everything in there so on the elevations, you can see what we've added. I guess you can kind of compare what...We've come back and added a metal roof all the way around. You also have. Mancino: And what's this for? Guy Payne: That's just for the awnings. That's what the color of the stripes would be. So you'd have an idea. Nutting: Are they all in green or are some blue up here? Guy Payne: It's all green. Green. Green and white. Red and white stripes... Nutting: Are you going to put these awnings on this building? Guy Payne: Not, except the corners. That will go all over except for the two corners. The yellow... Nutting: The rest of them would be these? Guy Payne: Yeah. And I understand they say no back lit awnings and that's okay. We at least want to keep that awning... The reduction of the flag is okay. Last time we didn't even get a flag so I guess that's some improvement that we get an 80 square foot flag, because that's sort of important to us. His other comments concerning landscaping... incorporate that into the landscape plan ... It'd be basically the same stucco as the other building so. I guess another comment, it's just a matter of evaluating the elevation we're proposing. All the other comments are pretty much acceptable as far as the other conditions site wise. This is the exactly same size that we took the diskette, the ... diskette of the other building. Took it off and plopped this other one so we didn't change the site plan layout whatsoever. It has all the same features that were approved when it was first submitted. Any questions? Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners? Can you show me on the, on your ... there, where the neon tubular lighting is? Guy Payne: Right there. Which would go all the way around the building. Mancino: So it would go along the top of the building. 3 1 0 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 ' Guy Payne: Right. And then you have this accent band that wraps all the way around the building and then you have the two different colors so you can get a little punch out of that, similar to on the back elevation you also have a band that goes all the way around. So it did ' have some features beyond just a blank wall. And I think with the addition of the metal roof, it makes it pretty comparable to the front two views. ' Mancino: And is that on 24 hours a day? Guy Payne: You mean the neon one? I Mancino: Yes. Guy Payne: No. I mean it's only the night hours. Mancino: Okay. Secondly, do you have any pieces of the sprayed... ' Guy Payne: All the same color materials that we proposed before. Mancino: Now is that a, is it a sprayed insulation which adheres to the structure? Guy Payne: No. Basically what it is, you put your stud wall up. You put the plywood 1 backing. You come down, you attach st board like an inch and a half, an inch of Styrofoam and then you come and put a plastic mesh over the styrofoam and then there's a couple of-and then you come back with a color finish and trawl so it's like stucco but a ' true stucco, you put over the styrofoam basically is the difference. ' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Conrad: I think Americana Community Bank has the same system. ' Mancino: The same, okay. Are there Perkins of this architectural style already in the Twin Cities? ' Guy Payne: We built a new one in Eagan and Lake Street and they're a little different. They have the same materials. I think probably the most comparable things you could see were the ' exterior remodels around town that have, as I mentioned, have the same exact stucco and artist detail and awnings. I think that probably would be the most similar about anything we really have going. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: Do you have a color representation of the old design with you at all? That was approved. Guy Payne: No, not with me. As I said, we're really not building it any longer. A lot of, it had the exact same colors in it. It had the same metal roof. The same green ceramic tile in it. So really there's no change at all with the coloring scheme. It's just the arrangements, configuration on the building itself. Nutting: But that was the style, the style that was proposed you said was a style that was in existence for a while and you were phasing out? Guy Payne: Yeah. Basically we're doing it more for interior purposes than anything. The interior just was one big open dining room and we tried to take it and incorporate more of a broken up dining spaces so you're not just one big dining area. Cafeteria type space. We wanted more intimate dining spaces so that's how these, how this and another prototype we're building evolved. The corner entry with broke up dining spaces so you get more interesting interior space out of it. The bakery is a big strong point as you come in. You have a real strong bakery area with signage and stuff, so I think overall it's just a lot more exciting building. Nutting: I'm just trying to visualize what you're saying. So without the corner entrance you're not able to create some of those interior enhancements? Guy Payne: Right. Interesting spaces. Nutting: But I'm not disagreeing with him. Just trying to clarify what he's saying. So it's that issue plus you said we're building that for a prototype that has been used before, it came in way over budget. Guy Payne: Right. If we had built it when we first started working on the project two years ago, we probably could have, it probably would have been in the budget. But in those two years the price of construction has gone up so much, that's why we had to go to a smaller building. And that's why we had to look at our smaller prototype to put in there. Nutting: So this is a smaller overall footprint? Guy Payne: Yeah. Nutting: What was the first footprint? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: So we're at 5,000. Guy Payne: ...over 6,000. Guy Payne: Just under 4,500. Mancino: Oh! We're not at 5,000 anymore? Nutting: It says 5,000 in the staff report. Guy Payne: Yeah. It was actually 6,000. Nutting: No, but the revised plan that is 5,000 or 4,500? Guy Payne: It's really about under 4,500. I think on one of our site plans ... and somebody had put ... which is not accurate. It may affect... That one space... Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Payne? Thank you very much. Guy Payne: Okay. Mancino: Appreciate it. Guy Payne: I guess just to finalize, we've been working with it for so long, we'd certainly like to move forward so. I know, I don't know the status of Taco Bell and the Boston Chicken, or whatever they're calling themselves now, but we'd like to make progress so we'd like to get a decision tonight if possible. See if we could negotiate something. Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to open for public hearing? Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: Does anyone wish to address the Planning Commission? The public hearing is open. Seeing that no one does, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Discussion from commission members. Ron. n. Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting: I liked the first one better. I guess what I've, we're not going through the interior of the building to pick it apart and to come up with how to design the space layout to create some of those pockets for more intimate settings but I'm not, I don't know that I care for the neon along the top and the awning. Just to clarify, the original awnings on the first site were proposed to be the solid yellow? Okay. I think I prefer that better than the green, white, red and yellow stripe combination that I have here in front of me. Staff, the revisions you've made do, according to staff, seem to be moving in the direction of suggestions that they're looking for in terms of a proposal to make it acceptable but I'm not, I'm kind of hearing Bob saying that but I'm also hearing we didn't fully have enough time to address everything and so I'm more inclined to want to see and or hear staffs full assessment of these revisions they just got before changing it. I need to feel real comfortable with that before I can move this one along because I think the changes that are, I think it's a much different project with the changes that are made. And so I guess I would be of the opinion to table it until next meeting and get staffs full report. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I agree with Ron. And with those 14 recommendations where Alternate 2 ... proposed here... information here and staff hasn't had time to review it. I agree. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: I'm going with the status quo here. I am in agreement to that. I'd like to see the full, the plans. Have them have a chance to review it and get their comments and everything before we go ahead. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I think I'm okay with the direction. We don't have the old prototype to put in. We're going to put in a new product. They don't build the old one. What was given to me in the staff report was not acceptable and I think the recommendation and the alterations that were presented tonight are getting close. We have a key piece of property in Chanhassen that's visible from four sides. It's probably one of the few that's visible from four sides so we care about that. And I think we have to, we should in this in case make a good product. So I'm in agreement. I think it's going the right direction. I think staff needs time to review it. I'd like to see some of their recommendations incorporated into the applicant's proposal so we can forward on something that they've had time to review and is more complete. Mancino: Thank you. I also agree with the four other commissioners. I'll be a little more specific in some of my comments and that is that I think directionally what we see tonight is 7 J Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 going in the right direction. I do want to say that on the approved plan in some of the exterior elevations the back, which is really facing Highway 5, not only has the roof but has some columns or something architecturally there breaking up the back of it. And I think that we also need that on the east side too because people coming in from the west part of Chanhassen on Highway 5, that's what they're going to see. I have two other comments. I guess more or less questions for Bob and that is, if we are within the ordinance, there are no Highway 5 guidelines. One has to do with the pedestrian accessibility to this Perkins and as I look on page, Sheet No. C -1. One of the intent statements, purpose statements in the HC -1 District under the Highway 5 corridor. It says that ample consideration shall be given to the width of the interior drives. Interior traffic movement and flow. Separation of pedestrian, cycling, automobile and delivery traffic. How are we getting people, whether it's cyclists or pedestrians, to walk from Target or from into Perkins without going through a parking lot? Without going through a lot of automobile traffic. I don't see that. Generous: Well not into the interior specifically. Mancino: Well up to the front door so you can enter the restaurant so that people can actually walk from one place to another. Generous: There's nothing specifically on this plan that will, except for walking on the landscaping. We have that sidewalk that comes from Target Lane and that connects to West 78th Street which is another sidewalk. Mancino: I would like to see more consideration given to that then. How they're going to, ' how people will walk from Target Lane and be able to walk into the Perkins restaurant without going through automobile traffic. And whether that's on the north side of the parking ' lot, and you come around. Or just again, ample consideration because I don't think much has been given to that. It doesn't look like it. r r Aanenson: Well I guess we felt like we lost that argument when Target came in. Remember there was a lot of discussion and the Planning Commission felt strongly about putting a walkway through the middle of Target. As I recall, the Planning Commission was adamant about that. And as it went through the process the Council felt like, because there was a sidewalk on West 78th, that that accomplished that and Target was reluctant to do that because of the shopping cart issue. So I agree. I think the staff agrees. I think the Planning Commission felt strongly. It would have been nice to have a walkway through the parking lot so we didn't have that conflict. Unfortunately, you have to go either north, or as Bob indicated, south along the front. To try to, so the linkage, the only opportunity we have now, once you get west of the Target Lane to try to connect. We can certainly look at that. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: I understand the issue and it's important, sure. And we felt bad when we didn't accomplish it with the Target site plan because that is a large parking lot. Conrad: You ought to see what the K -Marts in Naples, Florida are doing. Exactly what we wanted to do with Target. Exactly. Now they don't have snow removal problems. Aanenson: Right, and that was the big issue I think with Target. Conrad: But you know, it's just real fascinating to see what other communities are doing and we should have done it. We really blew that issue for no good reason, and that's too bad. That doesn't reflect. That's gone so we can't. Mancino: So let's not keep blowing it. Conrad: Well, because that's not there, then we don't have, I don't know what we can accomplish. But I think your connectivity is still a valid issue. I think we've got a sidewalk that probably doesn't lead anyplace other than to, well I'm not sure where it leads to but anyway, I think staff should look at that. Mancino: Well and even if there's a designated crosswalk, you know pavers or Aanenson: Right. Which we did by Target. There's a stopping zone where you have to watch for pedestrians coming out of the store. I think we have the same situation at Byerly's where you've got that striped area and maybe that's a way to accomplish it. So people are more cognizant of watching for the conflicting movements. Mancino: We have cyclists all over on weekends, stopping and getting their cappucino from Perkins, etc. My other concern, having to do with this chapter on the Highway 5 corridor, is that it says that parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front yard setback of any lot. And then there is a diagram that shows that there should be no parking in front yards. Now according to this document Perkins has two front yards. It has Highway 5 and the West 78th, is that correct? Generous: Or Target Lane. Mancino: Or Target Lane. Are we, Bob tell me. How come we have parking between Highway 5 and the actual building? I got the impression from reading this that there is to be no parking in the front yard area... 9 J 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Aanenson: ...the existing one, we went with the underlying. Mancino: Yes. It starts at Powers and the other districts starts once you get west of Powers. Generous: Actually the only frontage this has is Target Lane. Because the city's outlot surrounds it. Then Lot 2. Mancino: Okay, so it doesn't sit on Highway 5. ' Aanenson: Yeah, the rest of the Highway 5 corridor starts when you get west of Powers. Generous: Yes, and the parking is a layout of staff criteria and what was established as a part ' of the PUD. Because they had to provide what would be, because of public safety issues, they had to revise the radius of the entryway that serves all three properties. And so they lost some parking on the east side of the project. And they made it up, they could make some of ' it up on the west side of the project. For that very reason that they're not actually fronting on public right -of -way on those other sides. They meet the setbacks. ' Aanenson: Yeah, what you're not seeing there is the landscaped area that the city will be doing between their property line, yeah the outlot. ' Mancino: And we will be landscaping that eastern end of the parking lot quite well? ' Generous: You mean the southeast corner? Oh yeah. Mancino: Thank you. Those are my concerns. Questions I wanted you to look at and ' otherwise, I would like to see this come back again and to have staff do a review of it for us. So with that, may I have a motion? ' Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #94 -6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 pending staff review and analysis for the Commission of the recent changes submitted by the applicant. That's it. ' Mancino: Do I have a second? 1 Meyer: Second. Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussions? 1 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 1995 Nutting moved, Meyei• seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan 994 -6 foi• Peiians Family Restam-ant, prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 pending staff review and analysis for the Commission of the recent changes submitted by the applicant. All voted in favor- and the motion carried. Mancino: So it will be tabled and we'll see it again when? Aanenson: Our preference would be on the 26th because we don't have a meeting the first one in July because we decided we probably wouldn't have a quorum on July 5th. So if we can get it on in 2 weeks. Mancino: Okay, so Mr. Payne, in 2 weeks. June 26th it will come back. Aanenson: Sorry, it's the 21st. Mancino: 21st. June 21st. And I encourage you and staff to work out everything so it's complete and is final at that time. You don't come back to cold Minnesota too many more times. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 18 REGARDING PLATTING PROCEDURES, DATE REQUIRED AND DESIGN STANDARDS AND CHAPTER 20 REGARDING DEFINITIONS• IDENTIFICATION OF ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS; STANDARDS FOR SALES TRAILERS, WETLAND PROTECTION AND SHORELAND REGULATIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS AND THE FOLLOWING ZONING DISTRICTS OF PUD, A2, RSF, R8, BN- NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, BH- HIGHWAY & BUSINESS, AND IOP- INDUSTRIAL OFFICE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for Kate? Conrad: Questions or. Aanenson: Comments or editorials. Conrad: Sure. Page 3, where it says alleys. Does that apply to residential? It says alleys are prohibited except for. 11 � I r. I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m and gave an opening statement regarding the procedures of a Planning Commission meeting. t MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Farmakes, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, and Craig Peterson. Ladd Conrad arrived after item number 3 on the agenda. ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting and Bob Skubic STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer ' SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION, PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURANT, ' GUY PAYNE. C r Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you Bob. Do any of the commissioners have questions for Bob? Or staff at this point. Would the applicant like to approach the Planning Commission please. Guy Payne: I'm Guy Payne with Perkins Family Restaurant... and after the last meeting we, and in meeting with Bob also after the meeting, we incorporated the recommended details... and columns that were provided ... and hopefully that meets everything requested. That's pretty much it. If you want to ask questions. Comments. Mancino: Thank you. Does anyone have a question for Mr. Payne? Farmakes: I maybe do. Do we have, are those from last time? Mancino: This was from last time. These were the same. We should use these as visual references Mr. Payne for what we see? Guy Payne: Yes. Mancino: This is, Jeff I'm not sure you were here but this is what we received last time. Guy Payne: That's just ... the striped awning. The other one is the, that actual prototype, that second photo. And that's a photograph up to the elevations of that same building that we're 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 planning to provide. That doesn't have the view of the, the back two views ... so we have to look at those building elevations and try to see how that's going to incorporate. Mancino: Excuse me, I have a couple questions. Peterson: Can I ask a question please? Mancino: Sure. I am looking at your A -3. I don't know if you have one, do you have one in front of you? Guy Payne: No. Mancino: Okay. Which says right side elevation. Bob, is that right side elevation facing south or Highway 5? Am I understanding that right side elevation? Generous: That would be the Highway 5 elevation. Mancino: Okay. My question on that elevation is, as I look at the new drawings that we have and I see where the columns are going to go. I am assuming that those columns will, excuse me Jeff, have the detail in them that are on this photo and that means that there's some recess in the middle of the column. Guy Payne: Right, that's correct. Mancino: That's correct? They will still have those. Guy Payne: Right. Now they have two different colors in it so it will break up the... Mancino: Okay. So they won't be plain, thank you. My other question is, that around this particular prototype building there is a sidewalk so that when there is a parking lot around the building everyone, when they get out of their car, goes to the sidewalk and then goes to the entrance. Will this Perkins have a sidewalk around the building much like there is on, the only reference that I know that's around here is the Sydney's on Highway 7. It has parking all around it. When you get out of your car, you go to the sidewalk. It surrounds the building and it makes it. Guy Payne: This basically has sidewalk around two sides, which is where the majority of the parking is. !7 L L Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 ' Mancino: Don't we have parking on all sides of the building? Surrounding the building on this. ' Generous: Yes. Mancino: So when people get out of their cars on the two sides that don't have parking, can ' you show me Bob how that works? One of my issues was being pedestrian friendly and getting people into the building safely. ' Generous: The primary customer entrances are I believe in the northwest corner of this site so they do have access from the northwest and east on the sidewalk system. I'd anticipate, since the south elevation has a service entrance, that that's primarily where they'd have their ' employee parking. And they do have the short sidewalks right into the building at those points. But people would generally have to walk across the parking lot to get to the sidewalk on the north. ' Mancino: But there is a sidewalk there to collect people and I know ... to that sidewalk on the north side from what I'm seeing here. That is correct? Aanenson: Right. ' Mancino: And I also, I think what I see is an apron or a sidewalk also on that east side where there is so much parking that faces Target. ' Generous: There is just the end of the sidewalk. It wouldn't be on the side of the building I don't believe. ' Mancino: This is from last week's plan that weren't included. ' Generous: You mean the perimeter one? Or the one down Target Lane? Mancino: As you come here and park and you walk up here, you're on a sidewalk that takes you to the entrance of the building. Generous: No. I don't believe there's anything proposed on the east elevation. ' Guy Payne: No. We're really trying to do some landscaping since on the north and south we're sort of high. On the south there's virtually no room to even put a sidewalk. Then the ' east we were really trying to put the landscaping along the side and then people would walk along, up until they get up to the north sidewalk and tie in there. Planning Commission Meeting s June 21, 1995 Mancino: So people again are going to walk kind of kitty corner through the parking lot to the front entrance versus coming up here to the sidewalk and. Guy Payne: Yes. Mancino: Can you drop people off in this area? Is there enough of an apron area? Guy Payne: Sure. Mancino: For people to be let off. Guy Payne: Sure. Mancino: Okay. And are there places for bikes, etc to park? Guy Payne: There could be on that east side. Peterson: How many feet of landscaping is there? What's the scale? Quarter inch. As far as the landscaping around the building on the east side. Is there room for a sidewalk and landscaping or not? Guy Payne: On that side? Mancino: On the east side, where the main entrance is? Guy Payne: That'd be very ... put a sidewalk. That would take up almost to the end of that building there. Since we're so tight on the north because normally we would have more in the north and the south where we could scoot it down with the landscaping on the north side but then the configuration of the lot as is, we really could ... And there really will be more landscaping than what's shown on the east side. That's not totally complete. Right now it's showing... Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Payne at this time? Farmakes: I have... again what the primary reason is to come back before the Planning Commission versus the previous? Guy Payne: It was a recommendation to increase metal roofs and other ornaments to the building on the ... side so that's why we come back and resubmit it because it was suggested there wasn't enough architectural treatment. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: If by that, the previous building as I understand was stucco? Guy Payne: Same materials. All the same color materials... Farmakes: Am I, I have the older plans and I'm seeing different materials drawn on the outside of the building. Is that? Guy Payne: Different material? Farmakes: Well, it's showing stucco and so on. Guy Payne: Same thing on the building. Farmakes: Same thing. Generous: The primary difference was that had the massive roof on the top and it was a slightly bigger building. Actually 500 square feet larger I believe. Guy Payne: It was 1,500 square foot larger building. Farmakes: In going to the awning situation. On the awnings that we approved before. Mancino: Were not striped. Farmakes: Were not striped, but they were not all yellow either. They were green and yellow, were they not? Guy Payne: No. They were all yellow. Farmakes: They were all yellow? Aanenson: But they were not to be back lit though. Farmakes: Did we discuss the issue, and it's been a while since we approved this so I'm trying kind of ... memory to go through this. There was a question in the previous one about neon and what we discussed about how that fit into what the PUD covenants were. Aanenson: Well the first one didn't have neon on it. Generous: No, it didn't have neon on it. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Aanenson: Well the back lighting we said we couldn't allow. The awnings. Farmakes: Okay, we have neon striping on the plans that I see in front of me. Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: And how does that relate to the covenants of the rest of the building in the general area? I don't believe we have any other buildings in Chanhassen with neon striping on it. Generous: Not that I'm aware of Mancino: No, we don't. Farmakes: Does that single it out within the covenants of the Target and the outlot? Generous: Not within the PUD it wasn't addressed either way. Farmakes: So that wouldn't be substantially different than from the surrounding building? Generous: I don't know. Not substantially I don't believe. You have the other buildings in the downtown that have their large sign areas that are back lit and that acts the same way. It gives off that blue or green or red glow. Mancino: Bob, that's only the signage area, isn't it though? Generous: Yes, Mancino: It's not surrounding. It doesn't run the perimeter of the entire building so this would set a precedent. Farmakes: The reason I'm bringing it up, and since I believe in your report it talks about bright bands or, and we never did address the issue. I was talking about colors versus neon and that's ... in the report. So I'm trying to establish, because I couldn't recall whether we had discussed it on the previous page or not. Generous: I don't remember discussing it. Farmakes: Because I understood it wasn't an issue. It wasn't submitted as such. This is different. 9 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Generous: Well it wasn't submitted. They did have the neon banding around and it was mentioned in the report but I didn't, you know, feel that that was a big issue. Guy Payne: And we had basically the same neon wrapping all the way around the building on the previous submission. Farmakes: I noticed that, since this is back and forth, I've noticed in looking at the Perkins in Hopkins, which I drove by today, all the awnings on the building are green except for the yellow one that's in front of the entrance and I'm just wondering what consistency Perkins has in regards to it's awning maker. Guy Payne: This stripe is the standard. 3M's our... company and we worked it with 3M in developing this new awning and as a matter of fact, I talked to the 3M rep yesterday and they already produced 100 of those stripes for us and we've already used them all up so that's our standard. We've tried it in probably 4 or 5 locations of the different awning. The yellow and green. That's a test basis and basically this yellow with the stripe in it is our standard. So there's quite a few being, either done or being done in the Minneapolis area right now to our existing restaurants. Farmakes: So you're familiar with the Perkins I'm talking about? Guy Payne: I am, however I'm not sure. We had one other scheme that was being done. That may be the same one. It had. Farmakes: This has arched windows. Guy Payne: Right. And it had a green awning with a yellow stripe in it and then the others were yellow with a green stripe. That's probably what you saw. Farmakes: No. I saw, all the arched windows had green awnings. Solid green, and the color scheme of yellow was in front of the entrance. Guy Payne: That's probably that same one. It should have a little yellow stripe around it. It's only a small, you may not even notice it. Farmakes: The reason I'm asking you this is that we've had this discussion before. I think with Taco Bell and some others who came in with color schemes that they're supplying and the obvious question we have is how consistent is this and so on with what we're seeing because they change. They seemingly change from store to store. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Guy Payne: Yeah, but that's not true in this case even though out of 200 awnings or so put up, about 3 or 4 have that yellow and green one whereas all the others are doing striped. Farmakes: The garbage collection area is leaning towards the most predominant junction. CR 17 and TH 5. Will there be any banners placed on? Guy Payne: Banners? Farmakes: Banners. We've had some other. Guy Payne: Banners on the dumpster? Farmakes: Yeah. No, on the shield. We've had some retail operations here in town that have been doing that. Guy Payne: No. We want to de- accentuate it. Not call attention to it. And that will be done in the same stucco to match the building so it will blend in as well as possible. Farmakes: The coverage on that. What would you determine on the landscape that we're looking at there? What type of real coverage would we have? Generous: Percentage of site? Farmakes: Well, the sizing of the trees and so on. I'm just. Generous: ...not showing the ones on the west elevation. I thought we had pretty good. Farmakes: The three I think indicated on the plans? Towards the southwest. Generous: Right. And what you don't see is the city also has their planting scheme. Farmakes: I saw some of those, yeah. Generous: They blend in. Farmakes: There's a row of evergreens and so on. However the elevation is such that you're sort of looking over that currently. Generous: Well currently and as these mature, the southeast corner will eventually disappear from view as you're driving down Highway 5. Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 ' Farmakes: So you feel that within say 5 years or something, we're going to get some real coverage there? ' Generous: I believe so. Especially we're doing in depth planting in Outlot A as part of the city's plan. I don't know if the applicant's would like it but we're going to screen the whole site. ' Farmakes: I have no further questions at this time. r J J Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Guy Payne: Thank you. Mancino: Can we have a motion to open the public hearing? Meyer moved, Fwmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion caiiied. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone wish to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Meyer moved, Fwmakes seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion cwiied. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: Well, I'll continue talking. I don't have any serious concerns about this building. I'm not wild about this striped awning. I'd rather see them green. I can understand why they want them yellow. It's a lot of yellow for me but fairly nice materials for a retail restaurant and the signage is not osentacious elsewhere. I think it's a reasonable nice building. I don't feel, the drama that you're seeing there, the skyline I think is a combination of some... I don't feel it's going to have as much drama on the entrance as is showing there. My preference of course would have been to have seen that maybe a little higher ... angle of the building. Mancino: How do you feel about the neon? Farmakes: Essentially there aren't going to be that many more restaurants going into the area. I'm concerned I guess about the precedent that we're going to be looking at lit up buildings that essentially become a sign and I've talked about that before. Where they've said it's not how the building looks but whether or not people are going to see it from 10 miles away. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 We're really a low impact area. I mean as far as, you're driving fairly slow and you're in town. You're not competing with a lot of buildings so the question is, these buildings need to be seen well but they're not playing in the same field as they are at Southdale or Mall of America and so on. You don't have those kind of sight lines. It's just using some common sense in this area. I don't feel as a matter of practicality that if we allow that, that we're going to see a lot more of if. There aren't that many lots left so my preference is, would not to be seeing it. I don't feel though that it's probably justified in citing the real case that is going to cause a lot of destruction at this point. Mancino: Do you think other buildings will want it...? Farmakes: I don't envision Target or Byerly's or anything like that, if that's what your question is. My real concern with the building is that this is another building that's probably in the most predominant area of town. It's open 24 hours a day. They're going to see it. It's going to stay lit up and the neon actually, you know pin striping neon actually can be attractive but the point is that once the cat's out of the bag, you never know what's going to happen. But like I said, we've only got what, one other lot available in this property and unless we invent more commercial property. Mancino: We don't have any more lots. Aanenson: This is the last one. Mancino: This is Perkins, Taco Bell and Boston Market. Farmakes: I thought there was one more. Mancino: That's it. Farmakes: Alright. Well all the more reason then. Unless things really change on the Ward property, I don't see that happening. I thought perhaps when I was talking about the issue of the covenants. We were talking, there's an overriding covenant I believe in the downtown development that talks about how... significantly different and the comment about the brightly colored bands is referring to the general bright striping. Orange ... book stop retail outlets that you see. I don't feel probably that this falls in that place. So I'm not going to make a big issue out of it. Mancino: Okay. Craig. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 ' Peterson: I guess I really concur with Jeffs comments regarding the neon and the yellow. I think it's overkill in many ways. Again I don't feel strongly enough to advise... The only thing that I would add that I would like to take the developer's word that the east area be ' landscaped more than it is now with just grass as it's shown. With shrubs, etc, etc. If you can't put a sidewalk there, I think it'd be very conducive from a landscaped standpoint to put some significant bushes and stuff in there so. ' Mancino: Mike. Any comments? ' Meyer: I think we've pretty well covered it. No additions. Mancino: Good. I don't think I have any other new ones to add. My concern before was ' that I think the applicant addressed with the new plans was the side that faces Highway 5 and also the sidewalk and I see that as a condition, number 13. So I'm just very comfortable with it. Do I have a motion? ' Meyer: I'll make a motion. ' Mancino: Okay. Meyer: I make a motion that the City Council approves Site Plan 994 -6 prepared by RLK ' Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 13. ' Mancino: Do I have a second? Peterson: Second. Meyer moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Site Plan 1194 -6 prepared by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The sidewalk shall be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe crossing movements for pedestrians. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the site has been fully revegetated. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 3. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including, but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department. 4. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 5. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 6. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and /or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 7. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right -of -ways. 8. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen the dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles, delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration /irrigation tubing, see figures 11 -2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. 9. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15% of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. 10. The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag pole location shall comply with sign placement limitations. 12 r r I I L I Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 11. One additional "No Parking -Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In addition, where "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants. 12. The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. 13. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk on Powers Boulevard to the northwest corner of the parking lots. All voted in favor and the motion ca»ied. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDWfDE 122.29 ACRES INTO ONE LOT OF 2.53 ACRES AND AN OUTLOT OF 119.76 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED NORTHWEST OF WEST 96TH STREET AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, TIM ERHART. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions of staff from commissioners? Meyer: Kate, the number 5. That will be incorporated into the deed? That's a private agreement. t Aanenson: Correct. Meyer: Okay. I Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to give a presentation? Tim Erhart: Thank you for the invitation and I'd like to say ... being up here on a nice summer evening. I put in my 6 years. I just want to say that we've lived here 14 years and we're not leaving the area. We're going to buy a house on Lake Riley so we're staying in Chanhassen. That means I'm still eligible to be on the Planning Commission again. Other than that, I think it's in line with it I think. I've always been concerned about the property, that whatever we do with the property, in 14 years, we do it consistent with the future plan and so the ghost plat really fits with what we've been thinking all along. I think it's logical... 13