8. PUD Target Dev is C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: Aug. 19, 1992,1
\ 1 CHANBASsEN CC DATE: Sept. 14, 1992
r
CASE #: 92 -5 PUD
1 B : Aanenson:v
1 STAFF REPORT
1
1 PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Approval
r- Z
I
Q LOCATION: West 78th Street, north of Hwy. 5 east of Powers Blvd. and west of Monterey
V
1 Drive
�
Q .. APPLICANT: Ryan Construction RLK and Associates
I 700 International Centre 922 Main Street
Q 900 Second Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343
Minneapolis, MN 55402
I ,
1 PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business
1 ACREAGE: 18.78 acres
DENSITY:
I ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - BG, General Business
I S - Hwy. 5/ IOP Industrial Office Park
Q E - BG, General Business
I""' W - R 12 High Density Residential
1 Lt.
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
I IL
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant stand of mature trees including oaks, elms
basswood and box elders. The site slopes to the south. Currently,
a portion of this site is farmed.
I 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
1
1
Target Development
August 29, 1992
1 Page 2
1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota will be the developer of the Chanhassen Target site
I and outlot/retail sites. This will be the first retail project Ryan Construction has developed in
Chanhassen. Target Stores will be the owner of the Target Store and property. The entire
property is 18.78 acres including a 117,165 square foot Target store (10.36 acres), Outlot B
I offering space for 26,000 square feet of future retail development (6.61) acres, and Outlot A
(1.54 acres) tree preservation area. The HRA is also considering a gateway treatment on a
portion of Outlot B, which would be approximately .50 acres is size.
I At this time, Target is proposing to receive site plan approval by the end of September. The
approval of a specific site plan for the Outlot B will come in at a later date. The total acreage
1 does not include the Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. Staff will be recommending
that they be added at the time of preliminary plat.
1 At this time of conceptual review, Ryan Construction has proposed 3 alternatives for Outlot B.
Version lA of Outlot B includes 4 buildings and 26,000 square feet. Outlot Version 1B includes
5 buildings and 29,100 square feet of building. Outlot B Version 1C includes 6 buildings and
1 25,000 square feet.
When the city learned that Target was looking for a site in the community, the city took a
I proactive role. It was clear that Target could locate on several commercially zoned sites in and
around the CBD without substantial city input due to the fact that it is a permitted use. Instead,
I it was determined that if possible, the City Council should be put in a position of determining
only the most appropriate site but also the most sensitive site plan based upon the Hwy. 5
corridor design goals and Central Business District development plans. The staff set up a
I meeting with members of the Planning Commission, City Council, HRA, and Chamber of
Commerce. The meeting was held to review the plans laid out by staff; Bill Moorish, of the U
of M Center for Urban Design and the city's consultant on the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study, Barton
I Aschman. At that time, certain issues became clear. It was determined that the "Burdick" parcel
offered the best opportunity to compliment the CBD. First, the city gave high priority to saving
trees on the Burdick site. Views were important, as was image and the ability to fit with the
I downtown area. This was a highly unusual method of responding to a developer. Rather than
waiting for plans to be reviewed and then making the best of them, the City Council was able
to make decisions prior to the formal submittal.
I There is a large stand of mature trees located on this site. The HRA will be acquiring these trees
and the Target Store will be tucked against them. Loading docks and access will be located off
I of Picha via Monterey. Therefore, all loading will be screened from view. One of the other
issues discussed at earlier meetings was an area for a gateway monument. The HRA is still
considering placing a monument sign along Powers Boulevard. This will be located just to the
I
1
Target Development 1
August 29, 1992
Page 3 1
east of any required right -of -way. The parcels that are included in the Target site plan include
the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots 1 -5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Lot 1, Block 2.
Staff is also recommending that the Burdick Park Addition, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, be included
in this PUD. The reason staff is recommending this is that this will be the only parcel left out
between Powers Boulevard and Market Square and it makes sense to have these lots architectural
tied into the PUD.
The Target store proposes to be the first development in the PUD. It will be 117,165 square feet
in size and will have 585 parking spaces. The staff has seen the preliminary architectural
•
drawing of the store and it will be similar in design to those recently built in the Chicago area,
which is a significant improvement over typical Minnesota stores. The store will have the 8 inch 1
tile glazing with blue, green and red. The plan proposes a painted masonry with dark tan on the
bottom one -third and light tan on the top two- thirds. Block columns, ten feet in height, will be
placed every 16 feet along the west side of the building. The building will be 20 feet in height
with a 3 foot 4 inch parapet wall. At the top of this wall will be a 11/2 corbelled element. The
parapet wall would block all views of HVAC equipment; this would include views from Hwy.
5. A pitch to the roof has been proposed over the entrance to the Target store. This pitch
element is proposed to be a metal standing seam, bronze in color. Staff is recommending that
the pitch of element be carried around to the West 78th Street side of the building. Because the
site slopes to the south and the changes in grade to the east, the northeast corner of the Target
store will be a few feet below grade. Staff is recommending that the architectural design be
further refined to offer roof line elements consistent with downtown Chanhassen.
Staff is recommending the use of the PUD zone for several reasons. These reasons include:
preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees), improved pretreatment of storm water,
improved and coordinated architectural standards (pitched roofs, uniform signage and building
design), traffic management and design techniques (reducing the potential for traffic conflicts),
screening of undesirable views of loading areas. 1
The project conforms with plans for the realignment of West 78th Street. The road will swing
to the north as it approaches Powers Boulevard. The proposal requests a significant improvement
over the status quo of the existing West 78th Street alignment. The intersection with Powers
Boulevard will be eliminated. This will allow for improved development coordination and traffic
safety. The right -of -way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from the centerline for
the entire length of the development. The 50 feet allows for two through traffic lanes, required
turning lanes and, in some areas, sidewalks and landscaped boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch
(SRF), the city's traffic engineering consultants, will be preparing the road design for West 78th.
The Target proposal shows 3 access points into the proposed development; one at the entrance
to Target, one into the Target parking area, and one into the Outlot B parking area. SRF has
recommended that the access closest to Powers Boulevard servicing the outlot be a right turn-
in/turn-out only. A signal may be warranted at the Target entrance.
1
1
1
Target Development
August 29, 1992
1 Page 4
SRF has looked at the traffic generation for this area traffic issues. They have completed a future
peak trip generation for the 78th and Powers area based on complete development of this area
(both sides of West 78th) as commercial development. Even with total development, the traffic
as proposed will exceed the design capacity. The ultimate Average Daily Trip (ADT) for this
' area going south on Powers east onto West 78th would be 3830 or an increase from current
levels of 800 trips. The ultimate ADT's from north on Powers Blvd. east on to West 78th Street
would be 10,071, an increase of 7,071 trips. Again, this ADT's include ultimate development
in this area including, Market Square, and the James property to the north which is commercially
zoned.
1 Staff believes that this project is well conceived but needs to be refined as the process evolves.
The development of the PUD zone for this site shall ensure the type of development desired for
this area. This includes pitched roofs, compatible architecture, controlled access, and preservation
1 of the trees. Staff recommends approval of the conceptual PUD subject to the conditions in the
staff report.
1 Site Characteristics
This site is currently vacant, although a portion of the site is planted with corn. There is a
produce stand located on the property that has been there for a few years. There is a 3 plus acre
area of trees. The site slopes towards Hwy. 5 and is approximately 25 feet below the road grade
on Hwy. 5. The city, in conjunction with Barton Aschman, is in the process of developing a
' Corridor Study for Hwy. 5. The views from Hwy. 5 and the proposed development in this area
is critical to the image of the city.
The site is bordered by 3 major collectors, Hwy. 5, West 78th, and Powers Boulevard. SRF has
been working on the West 78th Improvement District. Recently, the City Council has approved
' the location of traffic signals at Laredo, Kerber, Great Plains and Market. SRF is also working
on the relocation and design of West 78th Street.
There is a significant change in elevation from the Target site to the Burdick property to the east.
There is a need for a retaining wall for the 5 to 6 feet in elevation difference.
1 Background
•
The parcels that are included in the Target site plan include the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots
1 -5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1. Staff is also recommending that the
Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2 be included in the rezoning. The Burdick Park
Addition, approved in 1990, was platted this area into 5 lots. Each of these lots could be
1 developed individually. In the worst case scenario they would each have incompatible
architecture, individual pylon signs and separate entrances onto West 78th Street. At the same
time, traffic generation would be similar to the current Target proposal.
1
1
Target Development 11
August 29, 1992
Page 5 1
The HRA will acquire the property where the development is proposed. This purchase is
contingent upon receiving all city approvals including rezoning, site plan, subdivision, etc. 1
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD 1
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 18.78 acres from BG, General Business to
I
PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD
request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20 -501. Intent 1
Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the 1
relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for
a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for
lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation
I
that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal
than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
I applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated
against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive I
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Find There is a significant stand of trees located on the southeast corner of the site. 1
These trees include oak, elm, ash, basswood and box elder. The HRA will be acquiring
1.54 acres of the trees. This will include the area that is predominately oak, so that the ,
trees are preserved. These trees are highly visible from the Hwy. 5 corridor and their
preservation will be an asset to the City. They will offer considerable screening of a
portion of the Target Store and all loading areas. 1
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. 1
Findin . The subject property is triangular and bordered by 3 major collectors. The
advantage in the PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If
I
this were to develop separately as individuals parcels, signage, landscaping, lighting and
architecture would not be compatible. The coordination of the site development will also
1
1
1 Target Development
August 29, 1992
1 Page 6
improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. There will be a
' comprehensive storm drainage system. The building pad on Outlot B will have a
common access as opposed to separate drives.
' 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
' Finding. The applicants are proposing to submit individual buildings plans for each
development lot. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each.
1 The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is
developed in a consistent and well planned manner. Higher quality development will
result. There will be compatibility with the development occurring in the CBD.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
' Finding. Sidewalks will be placed along West 78th and Powers Boulevard. In addition
the HRA is proposing a gateway treatment adjacent to Powers Blvd. Additional
' landscaping will be provided along West 78th, Powers Blvd and Hwy 5. The back of
the Target store will be against the trees and all loading will be screened from view.
1 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
' Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. This
area is adjacent to the Market Square development. The property north of the site is also
zoned commercial and guided for commercial development. The city is currently
reviewing a multifamily development in the vicinity.
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
' Finding. The Parks and Recreation Commission have recommended that sidewalks be
placed along West 78th and Powers Blvd. The Commission also recommended that the
park and trail fees be received in lieu of park and trail dedication.
' 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Findin . Not applicable to this proposal.
1
1
Target Development 1
August 29, 1992
Page 7
1
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
1
Finding. Chanhassen is one of the few communities that is able to have a pedestrian
oriented CBD. This is possible by the creation of a centralized "downtown ". There is
a park and ride facility in the area and the downtown is connected by sidewalks.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Find Access to this site will be from Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd. and West 78th. The City 1
Council has recently approved the location of 4 traffic signals on West 78th Street at
Great Plains, Market, Laredo and Kerber Boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, the city's
consulting traffic engineers, have recommended that a signal be placed at the main 1
entrance to the Target store. Of the other 2 entrances, one will be a full access (non -
signaled) into the Target parking lot and the other access to the building in Outlot B will
be right -in and right -out only.
1
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of
the site. In return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving:
• Consistent with Comprehensive Plan 1
• Screening of undesirable view of loading areas
• Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees)
• Improved architectural standards including; pitched roof, uniform sign- and
architecture
• Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts
• Improved pretreatment of storm water
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
At this time staff is reviewing and developing the framework for the PUD zone. The Target
Store will be proceeding through site plan review at the September 16, 1992, Planning 1
Commission meeting. There are three proposals for Outlot B. While the number of building
pads range from 4 to 6 sites, the square footage is relatively constant. Staff is comfortable with
all three proposals but site plan review for any building in Outlot B must consider the balance 1
of the outlot.
1
1
Target Development
August 29, 1992
1 Page 8
General Site Plan/Architecture
1
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has
reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for
1 language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document.
a. Intent
' 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
1 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
1 Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is requesting that all building sites within the
affected property shall be used solely for a Target store and commercial retail
development. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target store and property.
' Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property agent
for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements.
1 Finding. 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.
I 1.
2. Day Care Center
Standard Restaurants
3. Health and recreation clubs
4. Retail
5. Financial Institutions, including drive -in service *
6. Newspaper and small printing offices
1 7. Veterinary Clinic
8. Animal Hospital
9. Offices
1 10. Health Care Facility
11. Garden Center (completely enclosed)
12. Bars and Taverns
1
1
Target Development
August 29, 1992
Page 9
13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) *
* Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views
c. Setbacks
Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing to have all buildings no closer that 45
1
feet to Hwy. 5, Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street. Parking will be no closer than
20 feet to West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard and 15 feet from Hwy. 5.
Finding. 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. Buildings
located in Outlot B do not meet these standards. 1
Staff is recommending the following setbacks.
Street Building Parking
Setback Setback
West 78th Target 55 feet 20 feet
Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet ! 1
Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet
Hwy. 5 Target 120 feet 20 feet
1
Outlot B 50 feet 15 feet
The location of the Target store meets these standards but some of the buildings on Outlot B are
in non - compliance.
1
1 •
1
1
1
1
1 Target Development
August 29, 1992
i Page 10
I d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
USE Lot Area No. of Bldg. Parking Impervious
I Acres ..
Bldgs. Sq. ft. Surface
Target 10.36 1 117,165 585 79.8
r Outlot Version 1 6.51 4 26,600 219 59
includes gateway
1 area
Outlot Version 1B 6.61 5 29,100 243 68
1
Outlot Version 1C 6.61 6 25,000 182 61 %
Outlot A Trees 1.54
none
1 Outlot C Gateway .50
none
1 TOTAL 18.51 5 -7 average average average
144,065 * 800 67 %
1
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for commercial uses. The proposed
1 development meets this standard with an average of 67% hard surface coverage. This excludes
the 1.54 acres of trees and the .27 acres for right -of -way.
I *Parking as shown based on the uses proposed may be inadequate. Each site plan will have to
be reviewed to see if the parking meets the parking standards. Each development must deal with
the balance of the site.
I e. Building Materials and Design •
1 Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that Target will establish the
architectural standards. Ryan Construction will approve individual site plans to ensure
architecture building materials and site improvements.
I
1
1
1
Target Development 1
August 29, 1992
Page 11 1
Finding. 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
I
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. 1
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 1
4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone,
textured or coated. 1
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. 1
6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure. 1
7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the
I 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 1
will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.)
9. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line. 1
f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1
Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is requesting to install the required landscaping
I
incremental or as each lot develops. .
Finding. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the
I
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 1
covered with plantings and/or lawn material.
I
1
1
1 Target Development
August 29, 1992
' Page 12
2. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
1 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 wall 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.
g. Signage
Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing each lot to have a monument sign and
2 pylon signs, one for Target and one for the outlot. Signage would be consistent
1 ' throughout the development.
Finding. Staff is proposing 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 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
1 of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted.
3. All signs require a separate permit.
v consistency throughout the development The signage will have consiste cy thr ment and shall tie the g p
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.
1 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
1
1
1
Target Development 1
August 29, 1992
Page 13 '
h. Lighting ,
Applicant's Proposal. The applicants are proposing a decorative shoe box fixture, with
a square ornamental pole. These would be in the parking lot and the street right -of -way. '
Finding.
1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for
site lighting shall be no more than l candle at the property line. This does not
apply to street lighting. 1
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. 1
3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as
activated by yearly conditions. 1
4. Light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards.
Streets /Access
This property is bordered by 3 major collectors; State Hwy. 5, County Road 17 (Powers ,
Boulevard), and West 78th Street. West 78th street is proposed to be realigned and it will swing
to the north as it approaches Powers Boulevard. SRF is working on the design (West 78th Street
Detachment Improvement Project) of this street. Plans will be developed jointly with the
proposed Target Development. All access to the site will be gained off of West 78th Street.
The site plan proposes that the most westerly access be a full access intersection. SRF has
recommended that this access be a right turn- in/right turn-out only, full access at this location
would be dangerous. The other two access will be full intersections with a signal at the most
easterly access to the entrance to Target. Two of these accesses will also serve the property to
the north.
Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch has looked at the traffic generation for this area and traffic issues. They
have completed a future peak trip generation for the 78th and Powers area based on complete
development of this area (both sides of west 78th) as commercial development. Even with total
development the traffic as proposed will not exceed the design capacity. The ultimate Average
Daily Trip (ADT) for this area going south on Powers and east onto West 78th would be 3830
or an increase from current levels of 800 trips. The ultimate ADT's from north on Powers Blvd.
east on to West 78th Street would be 10,071, an increase of 7,071 trips. Again, this ADT's '
include ultimate development in this area including, Market Square, and the James property to
the north which is commercially zoned.
1
1 Target Development
August 29, 1992
' Page 14
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The site has a large stand, approximately 3. 5 acres, of mature trees. These trees include oak,
elm, ash, box elder and basswood. The city has already identified these trees as an asset as a
' part of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study. The HRA will be purchasing 1.54 acres of property for tree
preservation. The applicants have proposed thinning out all trees under 6 inches in caliper. Staff
is recommending that all trees regardless of caliper remain. The only trees to be removed from
the site shall be those trees that are diseased or dead.
The HRA is considering a gateway treatment at the corner of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. This
would be approximately 2 acre in size. This gateway area is reflected on Plan lA for Outlot B.
The landscaping shall be consistent with the standards of the landscaping ordinance. The
landscaping plan shown for the Target site calls for extensive landscaping around the perimeter
of the property and planter islands in the parking lot. Staff would recommend that trees be
placed in the walkway in front of the Target Store. These could be spaced between the proposed
columns. Street trees are shown along West 78th, staff would recommend that the northeast
portion of the city have a larger landscaping element. It appears that the cross easement to the
property to the east will work at this location. Landscaping plans will be reviewed at the time
of site plan review.
Grading and Drainage
The entire site is proposed to be regraded. The majority of the runoff will drain to a detention
pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. The pond shall be constructed
to NURP Standards from a water quality standpoint and provide storage capacity to yield a
maximum discharge rate of 20 cfs under a 100 year storm event. A portion of the northwest
corner of Outlot B is proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be
' constructed with the West 78th Street Detachment Project.
' The retention pond proposed a 2:1 slope, making maintenance difficult. Staff is recommending
that a drainage and utility easement be granted over the area and a graded turf driveway access
be designed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure.
1 Utilities
Water and sewer are available to the site. It is likely that future development of Outlot B may
require the relocation of some portions of the sewer line.
1
1
Target Development 1
August 29, 1992
Page 15 1
Park and Recreation
I
The Park and Recreation Commission met on August 11, 1992, to review this project. There was
a consensus among the members of the Commission to accept full park and trail dedication fees
as a part of this development. The Commission is assuming there will be sidewalks with the
development. Fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application. Presently, the
figures for commercial and industrial property is $2.500.00 per acre for park dedication and I
$833.00 per acre for trail fees.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
I
On August 19, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended conceptual approval of PUD #92 -5
subject to the following additions to the conditions of approval recommended by the staff: 1
1. The views of the Target site from West 78th Street needs to be improved to
promote visual orientation consistent with the location in the CBD. 1
2. The parking lot needs more landscaping to break up the massive look.
3. The view of the project from all sides and the feasibility for the size and type of I
landscaping, particularly as it relates to the view of West 78th and the parking lot
should be considered. 1
4. The design of Outlot B. It needs to be designed with a more user friendly look.
I The Planning Commission felt the proposed concept offered a confused jumble of
small lots.
5. Address the pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those 1
buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that might use such as
the bus depot.
1
6. Further investigation of traffic issues.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has worked with the applicants to significantly 1
revise the plans to address these issues. We believe this will be evident through the revised plans
that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their September 16th meeting.
1
Based on a soil report commissioned by the applicants, a number of soils corrections are
necessary to allow for the development of this property. There would be a significant cost saving
I
to the applicant as well as making the property to the north a more usable piece of property by
making it larger if the road was to move to the north. This realignment would move the
I
1
1 Target Development
August 29, 1992
I Page 16
touchdown point of West 78th ' approximately 120 feet to the south. The road realignment
changes to number and configuration of Outlot B. Any relocation of West 78th Street needs
I approval of MNDOT and the Carver County Traffic Engineer. Staff is working with the these
people to secure the appropriate approvals.
The Target store has been redesigned to reflect the concerns of the staff and the Planning
Commission. The revised plan will be presented to the Planning Commission on September 16.
I The applicants are seeking preliminary PUD and plat approval as well as site plan approval for
the Target Store. The applicants will be appearing before the City Council again on September
28 to seek preliminary and final PUD approval, and site plan approval for the Target site. The
I applicants hope to begin grading by the end of September. The revised plan incorporates a
number of architectural features that improve building design while promoting the visual
orientation towards West 78th Street. Landscaping plans are being substantially revised to
I increase plantings and reduce the percentage of hard surface coverage. Lastly, plans for the
outlots are being revised to promote the type of development described in the staff report.
1 RECOMMENDATION
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
I Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
1 "The City Council recommends conceptual approval of PUD #92 -5 as shown on the plans dated
August 7, 1992, subject to the following conditions:
1 1. Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2 be added to the PUD at the time of
preliminary PUD.
1 2. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report
and Engineer's memo.
1 3. The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn-in and right
turn -out only, full access be limited to the other two locations shown on the site
1 plan.
4. The three proposals for Outlot B may or may not be acceptable but each building
I must proceed through site plan review. This site plan review shall consider the
remainder of the balance of the site. This includes landscaping impervious
surface, parking etc. Any major changes would constitute a rezoning.
I 5. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street.
1
1
1
Target Development
August 29, 1992
Page 17 1
6. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees.
7. Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard.
8. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the Staff report. 1
i
9. Improved design of the Target store including the view from West 78th.
10. More landscaping in the parking lot of the Target Store. Sub mittal of all
sewer
11. Better design of Outlot B including the access road that runs through it. Uses
12. Further investigation of traffic issues.
13. Consideration of pedestrian access between Target and Outlot B.
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Location Map
2. Architectural rendering
•
3. SRF Traffic Forecasts
4. Memo from Charles Folch dated August 12, 1992
5. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 12, 1992
6. Letter from Carver County Engineering dated August 4, 1992
7. Narrative Document from RLK dated August 12, 1992
8. HRA Report dated August 14, 1992
9. Planning Commission minutes dated August 19, 1992
10. Site Plan dated August 7, 1992 1
1
1
1
P
ii , `=+ •Aa es, U541 •
Mori as
��� ��
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . 4 14 N pit I 4 P LANNING COMMISSION MEETING W ON _ sr D
Wednesday, September 16, 1992 - 7:30 G P -�' - --
City Hall Council Chambers h
690 Coulter Drive _ -J M
to
—
� .. ...:.: ` Y 63iiii MU
Project: Target Development
1 Rezoning, Preliminary PUD,
MI - -'-u-
Site Plan Approval, and . _
I Interim Use Permit . IR
Developer: Ryan Construction Company aa. ���
�� F • � s T�IT E
Location: SE Comer of the Intersection HIGr IINI I of West 78th Street and
Powers Boulevard �' 3
1 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. Ryan Construction Company proposes rezoning 20.96 acres of property from
I BG, General Business District to PUD, Planned Unit Development, a preliminary PUD and
site plan approval for Target Development on 10+ acres. In addition, the applicant is seeking
an interim use permit for grading of the entire site.
1 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
I project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
I 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.
1 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
1 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
I wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937 -1900. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
1 Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 3,
1992.
1
1
Bloomberg Companies, Inc.
1
545 West 78th Street B. C. Burdick Douglas M. Hansen et al
P. 0. Box 730 426 Lake Street 17001 Stodola Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55343
1
Frontier Development Corp. Roberts Automatic Products Lutheran Church of the Living
c/o Bloomberg Companies 880 Lake Drive Christ
P. 0. Box 730 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Box 340
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
E. Jerome Carlson Frank Beddor III et al Eckankar 1
Instant Web, Inc. 1000 Park Road P. 0. Box 27300
6950 Galpin Lake Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 New Hope, MN 55427 1
Excelsior, MN 55331
Richard S. Brose et al
Mithun Enterprises, Inc. Dean R. Johnson Construction c/o T. F. James Company 1
900 Wayzata Blvd. E. P. 0. Box 1533 P. 0. Box 24137
Wayzata, MN 55391 Maple Grove, MN 55369 -0028 Minneapolis, MN 55424
I
Twins Cities and Western RR State Bank of Chanhassen
723 1 lth St. E. 680 West 78th Street
Glencoe, MN 55336 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
1
1
1
1
... 1
1
1
1
1
1 k
-- P ' .._.- - r ..*.' i -- .....
1 .._ ......-
-...,
\-*. \\ - r- \ - ,..,
----...----- <
I \ , \
a -I
,
\\ , i i n
i
i i
Ln ; i 1
• •
?
.•-
I \ --\----/
2
0 v
13
.s
T
I - -
'.. t
v
0
0
.e .0
,
S A
\ 1 -----
\ ' \ NW? O-
‘ ..------L---N—"----- .
1 -....
I- F
/
. ' / 4 %._ ■
** Ift ..
0 \ 1 4b
... 12
N **......... .
•
O 64 %4.4.14, • 141 .
. W111 0 ,1181
..: ,..i
. / 4'' / M • P'
O \ .
O 5 , , P •
/ ..40,
0 1 '
/
/
, ca
ca ca • /..,.., •
(II
2 Pc 1 ..t
,t. , f.,...: . 7.--------- 's--..- 1 !t - •
..'\.. ), . ' — / \
.
0 a- / " T - / .
r*I ,
/ - ----- ----,.. ----- 1 _______ _.. .
, - —
I' -e-10„
_ rs , .c3T
AGE .-•
.., 1
. M.
1, r - - Ai. .. ..
.0 ■ / , eN0 1 4 ; '0 H T 44 ;. 4, -
4* v BIJ DICK . 1 ., re 4 ...... : s_11K -I'
,
I i, rmioNI v lit : 1,,....,_ ..., ......,.,,..._ __
1 1
le i - A_ TRAIL
V. ' Lill ,
orals • , ,
1 ... ,
i
4
30
4 .. -
0 „c 1 1
,,
1 I MIX . t
i;111! FIJI
• 0111111:.--...wwW” g
T
0 t
f. v,
,.0 ..... ini
' IP i
' ,. 14 0Vaiii " ii ._—
1 I I 0 •!: , ....,„
1 1
7 .17\l' ll L -- ill'
‘
t'fi
I ' •,•.• --
. z
n \ ! !
_ , .1 1
.1 or:
- i ..
)
4 ,
,
, ,;,,,,...0 • , . en• ..
2
eLvo _ 1.: _ i , -4 1 •:...- - -
_
.. i f, A lcillaglin
IP, -,k r. 11 11/ 1 11 III litilla , ,1,4,
, •44, 0., r A.
■
1 i 0 . ■ t !I 111 KICIMA
I
i _ Ci I
1; ' Ea ql111119911
40,
. i i tisito. ,
, iln
,.. ,...
•,, 1 %.. .,• 4.
I '."'•- 8 ..
,.... _A 3 •i
ii i,\NN ,
I - ;.:1:::
. . 1 f. w r,
\ 15 -
r,- q
,.._ . : l -, r
*-; _, .. _r,;:r,r,r . . d oi
tot
&
. ,, i ,-. ,: n..1,-. '-. 1;4; •n Inn
.: ,,_ s .
_ IL . g !i
17
f - „.• I ., , .. Ira
• . • ,
I 1 f !P 8
-----, n_11"",!--- \ _ 1 n io 1 \ i I • . - 7 p -,.:, =1: . 1 1. ' -
, :! ; t • q - "- ••:," '::. . '''' / 'C,
NMI M • MI r 111111111 1111111 Ms UM M MI r— — MI ON — N—
raTa,
Of CO. o. I •
WV' I WV' 1 r'4 WY/ r•a I 14, 1 ra I r•4 1 M•a IIe TOMO
T I 17 OP III OW
a— I I I 1 i
o �■■m ..■■ � •
74 TO d al a. n r 1 f 1 1 1 1 a t tA- .. i� , ■` `.11? . A n ��� a•■■■a Nommommommunno
74 � :A
+3:J•'
I PARTIAL PLAN C.
Inc' • ro ("� ( ('� ("� 4 4
T 4 T T 4 T 4 4
o r
T. w . - J .. -__— .d®IRR�mRllr��- 1° a Iraq _
ate._ i ___
Il � ��
SIR
■. un iv f - :'y' -, ,te e, 1i . 1 � �1 .
L ��a
(FRONT ELEVATION 1
ta•• w, mrt.rrs ` a uw.,:Tm.an a— rram.c au ou
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
i 1 I
> 1 i 1 1 i i Am.
s k i �?h• - duimmumwmiiuita rrmlmlmummiiamilizwr,V
— ME -
I LEFT ELEVATION ME
1/11 • Ta
4 4 4 4 p 4 4 4 4 4
I I I I I I I I
- t w +soar Y " 1 4 .
i ...- \�
•-.. B�'Igv I - - - - - 1�1 _ . - . - - __ Si[sy� \�� _ =�°
_ ; a-�', - . pie _4
I.r =� � :^ •
yam\ ..:: ----� �' ? af>•.+ �.a
�i B e a�D� �r _! n�a''. -,1 liM-Y. I - I 11 .. I •
1 REAR ELEVATION
I /N • • r•
[ C D p p G p [
w w,.T
T T 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
. —
' It ' 4 ''. j.r4"111-,z,,,, ..;;;.'11•1•1111111 7..
as o ..,.,.;� _` . ' et • .........-
I RICHT ELEVATION '
Inc • ra
.0 TARGET • 3.ra ± ILL
11-93 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PARTIAL PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS /� �/�
o a au a'� A H
I
j p D C
r B i ! P
. J\
7
z n ;
1 0 z
D
I [!A bt
1 I " I• _ ..„....$
. ir , , ,
1
1 hr. I�13
ii it b q
1 .7 01 . t .
1 \ •
; s
[I, 4
- " )\-
. Ilk • r t lir* ,
I in
1z.4 if
I I g 2 16. —
Pial ........._ .._ .
1 z n=: 1
D ''
m
e7
r"
o ; e ra III ;
i f/1 gum
1001 I
i
Y_� nI q.q
, VI O
" LG I�
i Ai •H ior
1 i1 °'t
u
1
e it 1
w. F ft
.
1 w
r g
�� 1.01. •H•1 i n 902-.4 1411:10N ( SW9 t9c-�, h
M M
W 1- v
5 CI)
say 0
ell f F-
a1 a3111VOaa • '' l -, t GR' g a 0
•
t�N
,t .✓ 0
cc . i'"
) 3 r z w
G
C.%, � U
Z 0
tat3; (�
So, 3 ue g 8
•aa 0a3aY1 (s,.) s r a z
MOl-■ ^1 9 _ m ti
(bbl) ut� ess P so U LL
g �eo►( b) 0 1.. N IE
•oA1813 )1avw , y y re � 1 r zs+ c4 , U = _
an—► `1 1 f = i
(t c) et 7 I xas Y
eE i : MN a
.+v'vsM
CNH ":•`" , `" W
4- o»(5z2) a
j L,'. —oz
•aA18 a38a3)1 c 0 zns rates`'
a
C Z ` l-- t t ' � W/�
f^ 4i
6"
S ]jj `
v N v �)
V
LI-
D. 2
J zci
g 1
i ii g 1 i 6 1
0A18 Sa3MOd -M-- (5') DX o 3 �� o
(
t/1 u .' i
co
of
N. z
ig
0
1 CITYOF
Olt°14/4 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
111 TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Target Site Development Concept Review
LUR 92 -11
In review of the concept Target site plan submittal dated August 5, 1992, I offer the
P g P �
following comments:
Watermain
Water service for the Target site (Lot 1, Block 1) is proposed to be acquired by connecting
to an existing 10 -inch watermain located at the westerly limits of Picha Drive and extending
an 8 -inch watermain along the east and north sides of the building tying into an existing 18-
inch watermain along West 78th Street to complete the loop of the system. It is assumed
that this service line installation within the subject property will be owned and maintained
privately. If it is intended that this line is to be public, appropriate utility easements for the
alignment will be needed. Water service to the proposed Outlot B is available via an
existing 18 -inch watermain along West 78th Street. It is likely that the development of this
outlot will necessitate relocation of some portions of the existing watermain. A 20 -foot wide
utility easement over the alignment of the existing 18 -inch watermain through Outlot B shall
be established with new plat. Fire hydrant spacing and location requirements shall be
determined by review of the fire marshal.
' Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer to the Target site is proposed to be constructed along the eastern and
northern sides of the building and connecting to the City's existing 8 -inch sanitary sewermain
along West 78th Street. This line is anticipated to serve only the Target site. Therefore,
Is
ot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Kate Aanenson 1
August 12, 1992
Page 2 1
it is assumed that this line will be owned and maintained as a private utility. Sanitary sewer
1
service is available to Outlot B via an existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer pipe along the south
right -of -way of West 78th Street. It is likely that future development of Outlot B may
necessitate the relocation of some portions of this sewerline. A 30 -foot wide utility I
easement for the existing sanitary sewer alignment shall be dedicated over the newly created
Outlot B within the plat. In addition, a 30 -foot wide utility easement over the existing
sanitary sewer alignment shall be granted through Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat.
Grading and Drainage
The entire site is proposed to be regraded to create the desired development topography.
I
The majority of the site is proposed to drain to a detention pond located near the southwest
corner of the Target building. The pond shall be constructed to NURP standards from a
water quality standpoint and provide storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of
20 cfs under a 100 -year storm event. A portion of the northwest corner of Outlot B is
proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be constructed with the
West 78th Street Detachment Project. 1
The developer shall provide the City with storm sewer calculations and discharge rates for
the entire storm sewer system on the site as a part of the preliminary plat submittal. The
proposed pond embankment slopes are 2:1. This steep of a slope makes maintenance of
this pond somewhat difficult. If this pond is to be maintained by the City, an appropriate
drainage and utility easement shall be granted over the area and a graded turf driveway 1
access shall be designed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure.
Street /Access 1
The entire site proposes four access locations, three off of West 78th Street and the fourth 1
to be a service access from Picha Drive. The most westerly access serving future Outlot B
is proposed as a full access intersection. Information from a recent downtown traffic study
completed by Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch (SRF) indicates that a full access intersection at this
location would be potentially hazardous and not . recommended. Therefore, it is
recommended that the westerly access for future service to Outlot B be a right -in right -out I
only controlled entrance with no median break on West 78th Street. The other two access
locations to this site from West 78th Street will likely be signalized intersections which will
be constructed as a part of the overall West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project.
Review by the project consultant, SRF, of these proposed entrance locations and
compatibility with the proposed West 78th Street Detachment Project may result in some
additional issues that would need to be addressed.
1
1
Kate Aanenson
August 12, 1992
Page 3
The grading plan for the site also proposes to modify the profile for the future West 78th
Street Detachment Project. This may result in further issues that would need to be
addressed as it relates to impact to the proposed detachment project and the adjacent site
on the northside of West 78th Street owned by Mr. Charlie James.
This concludes my review of the conceptual site plan for the proposed Target development.
1 jms
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ,
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: August 12, 1992
SUBJ: Land Development Proposal, Preliminary Site Plan Review - Target ,
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned proposal on August 11, 1
1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Mr. John Dietrich of
RLK Associates, Ltd. was present at the meeting representing Ryan Construction Company,
the applicant. Mr. Dietrich did respond to questions of the commission. Acting as the Park
and Recreation Commission, there was consensus among the members in accepting full park
and trail fees as a part of this development in lieu of any land dedication or trail construction. '
This is assuming that the Planning Commission will be requiring the installation of sidewalks
along West 78th Street. However, a majority of the members acting outside of the parameters
of the commission wished to voice their disapproval of this proposal. 1
Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Andrews moved to recommend the City
Council require the applicant to pay full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication or trail
construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per
acre rate then in force for commercial/industrial properties. At present, these fees are $2,500
per acre and $833 per acre, respectively and that the applicant is held to the highest standards 1
of a PUD development to ensure a high quality development in the downtown business
district. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Koubsky. Commissioners Andrews,
Pemrick, Erickson, Schroers, and Koubsky voted in favor. Commissioner Lash was opposed. 1
The motion was approved.
1
1
1
t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
r= ,. 600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
(612) 448.1213 1 ' +'
CO1 \TY Of CAINEQ
I August 4, 1992
To: Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Planning Dire for
From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer/
Subject: Preliminary Site Plan
Chanhassen Target Development
Comments regarding the preliminary site plan for the Chanhassen Target Development dated July
20, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 22, 1992, are:
1 1. The county highway department supports the proposed concept of site access being
limited to West 78th Street.
2. Discussion with the city about the potential redesign of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 to safely
and adequately accommodate traffic in the area of the West 78th Street intersection is
' requested. A detailed analysis of projected traffic volumes and movements along this
segment of CSAH 17 will be required by the county highway department as part of the
CSAH 17 project review process. In particular, appropriate traffic control at the West 78th
Street and the Oak Ponds development intersections must be studied in detail. Traffic
' signals at one or both of these intersections may be warranted. Necessary project
revisions and additions may require area developers and /or the city to invest additional
' dollars in the CSAH 17 project.
3. It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right -of -way.
Any such installations are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of
CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
1 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right -
of -way (Including trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be
completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition" than
what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the
developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the
final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the
county and the city.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan for the proposed
1 development. RECEIVED
Affirmative Actron /Equal Oppomrnrty Employer AUG 0 6 1992
Prmted on Rec7+ded Paper
C "' V plc C1-1ANHA9REN
AUG -12 -1992 09:45 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES,.LTD.... TO 9375739 P.01
8-la-12_ Di4FT K.
4
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. Post -n" brand fax transmittal memo 787t # of pages ■ A
.tf/ 1
CONCEPT PUD NARRATIVE krilesling 110111111111111 �••
CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT °e `" tMEEMIIIIIIiiiiianAMMI 1
Ai
Revised August 7, 1992
INTRODUCTION 1
Located in the east central portion of the City of Chanhassen, on the western edge of the Central Business District 1
lies two parcels identified as Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Block 2 of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition.
These two parcels in addition to the vacated West 78th Street right of way form a 18.78 are parcel of property being
proposed for commercial development. Refer to Figure 1 for project location. Ryan Construction Company, I
hereinafter referred to as the developer, is proposing to develop the property into what shall be referred to as the
Chanhassen Target development.
The first step in the implementation of the Chanhassen Target development is to rezone the property from its current 1
BG (General Business District) zoning to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning. This document represents the
narrative that accompanies the seven site plan sheets submittal, The architectural details for elevations and materials 1
shall be submitted directly to the City staff from Target. The developer, via this submittal package for concept PUD
and the Target site plan approval, intends to go through the PUD process. Upon successful completion of this stage,
the preliminary, the final PUD and final site plain will be pursued. It is the expectation of the developer that the
following schedule is realistic. 1
CONCEPT PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS
1
Concept PUD and Site Plan Submittal July 21, 1992
Resubmit Revised Plan Sheets and Narrative August 6, 1992
Planning Commission Hearing August 19, 1992
I
City Council Hearing September 14, 1992
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD AND FINAL SITE PLAN FOR TARGET SITE 1
Submit August 24, 1992
Resubmit concept plan package, with developmental guidelines including the 1
Burdick property to the east of Target in PUD
Planning Commission September 16, 1992
City Council September 28, 1992
Anticipate approval of entire Target site plan which would allow the grading and building permit process to proceed
subsequent to the September 28th City Council meeting. This schedule assumes a decision is made at each 1
Commission and City Council meeting.
INTERIM USE GRADING PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS * 1
Conditional Use Permit Submittal (to allow site grading) September $, 1992
City Council Hearing September 28, 1992
1
1
CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 1
1
AUG -12 -1992 09:46 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES,.LTD.... TO 9375739 P.02
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 It is the expectation of the Developer to have a final decision on this site prior to October 1, 1992. The developer is
committed to working with City staff on this schedule, in the anticipation construction would be under way prior to
• the onset of winter.
* Back up position, make application on August 24, and withdraw application if preliminary and final PUD are
progressing.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
1
1
1 _
i CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 2
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1
I
PROJECT GOALS
The primary goal of the Developer is to develop 16.97 acres of the 18.78 acre site into a Target store on 1
Lot 1 Block 1 (10.36 acres) and individual retail parcels on Outlot B (6.61 acres). Three schematic
layouts for Outlot B are included as part of this submittal package, which illustrate various options on how 1
this parcel may be developed. The remainder of the 18.78 acre site consists of proposed additional right
of way for West 78th Street (0.27 acres) and Outlot A (1.54 acres), which shall remain in the possession
of the City for tree preservation purposes. There are several objectives that support the primary goal.
1. To integrate the Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Lot 1, Block 2 of West Village Heights Second
Addition into a Planned Unit development with compatible site organization and development standards.
2. Provide as a catalyst to the City to finalize the design and reconstruct West 78th Street per the Year
2000 Land Use Plan, the 1992 SRF Feasibility Study and input from this proposal on elevations of 78th
Street. - 1
3. Provide a full turning movement access onto 78th Street from Outlot B which would also serve the
James site to the north. The grade of West 78th Street at the main entrance of Target has been
designed to be lowered approximately 3 feet over the present day grade. This drop in elevation
decreases the grade originally proposed for West 78th Street by BRW approximately 2 feet. RLK has
reviewed the impact to the James property to the north and based upon a preliminary review the lower 1
elevation of West 78th Street at the Target entrance would not place an undo burden on this site and
future development. Additional design and evaluation of grades and a site plan may be necessary. It is
our understanding that Mr. James has retained an engineer who will study further the elevation, grades, 1
and access impact to his site.
4. To create a utility system, ponding area and combination public and private roadway system in 1
conjunction with the site development.
5. Protect the majority of existing hardwood trees at the southeast corner of the lot in accordance with
discussions and objectives of the City staff.
1
6. Develop a quality commercial /retail area compatible with the west CBD sub -area study prepared in
April 1992 and the City's Year 2000 plan and code standards. 1
The commercial site described and shown on Figure 1 is guided for General Business by the City's
Comprehensive Plan. It is also zoned for General Business. In order to create a PUD for this site, the I
developer intends to follow the City PUD zoning approval process. The developer wishes to enhance the
flexibility of development of the sites within the 18.78 acre tract of land through the relaxation of the
zoning district standards. In return, the developer's intent is to exchange improved quality and additional 1
landscape materials of the finished development project. •
The PUD will encourage the items listed in Article VIII, Division I of Section 20 -501. Later, in the I
details that are contained in this narrative document and attached plan sheets, the methods by which the
City's expectations will be met are demonstrated.
1
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 2'
1
1
RLK ASSOCIATES LTD.
1
DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL PACKAGE EXPLANATION
I Discussion in this section of the narrative introduction briefly explains the contents of the submittal
material. This data was transmitted to the City, with the appropriate Concept Stage PUD, Rezoning, Site
I Plan Review and Sign Package Fee. The items listed below are either included in this Narrative Booklet
(N) or they are included with the plan sheets (P). On July 21, 1992 the submittal package was delivered
to City Hall in Chanhassen, Minnesota. A revised narrative and plan sheet with a revised date of August
1 5, 1992 were submitted on August 6, 1992.
1. Completed application for Development Review (N)
I 2. Written consent of all property owners within the PUD (N)
I 3. Project narrative booklet explaining the project in detailed fashion using verbiage, sketches, charts, and
an appendices (N).
I 4. Set of ten plan sheets that describe in concept schematics the components of the project with detail (P).
Sheet 1 - Site Plan; Sheet 1A, 1B, 1C identifying alternative development schemes for Outlot B; Sheet
2 - Existing Conditions; Sheet 3 - Concept Utilities; Sheet 4 - Concept Grading; Sheet 5 - Concept
I Landscape; Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat; Sheet 7 - Tree Survey.
5. Plan sheet and description of materials and elevations identifying the architectural detail for the Target
I store shall be submitted directly to the City by Target.
6. List of property owners within 500 feet of the site (N).
1 7. Topography map and legal description of property proposed for PUD zoning and development (P).
1 BACKGROUND OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM PARTICIPANTS
CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT
Ryan P an an Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. will be the Developer of the Chanhassen Target site and
Y
Outlot B retail sites. Under the direction of Bob Goodpaster, the project will be the first commercial retail
I development that Ryan has developed in Chanhassen. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target
store and property. Ryan has considerable experience in developing Target stores and their associated
developments such as the Rockford Road Plaza in Plymouth and the Cliff Lake Centre development in
I Eagan. In addition, Ryan has developed a number of Industrial and Office Corporate Parks including the
Chanhassen Business Center proposed for Audubon Road. ' Their commitment to the business client and
the City to provide a quality retail and business environment helps to assure that the Chanhassen Target
1 development project will be a successful development venture.
Architecture for the site development within the Target proposal will be performed by the architects on the
l Ryan Construction Company staff in association with Target architectural staff. Greg Madsen will be in
charge of the architecture design and coordination with the other design team members.
1
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 3
1
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1
Site planning, surveying, engineering and landscape architecture services will be provided by RLK
I
Associates, Ltd. Dick Koppy will serve to facilitate the project's involvement between the City and the 1
developer on all items related to site planning and infrastructure development. RLK Associates has served
Ryan Construction Company for over 5 years on many of their retail, industrial and office park
development projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
* * *
PROJECT DETAILS
I
Planned Unit Developments (PUD) offer enhanced flexibility for the developer to achieve a more creative
use of the land while easing the normal zoning district standard. In exchange, the City expects that the
development plan will result in a significantly higher quality development and more sensitive proposal than
in the more standard zoning district development proposal. This section of the Narrative discusses the
strategies of the development plan for the Target Development related to criteria the City has indicated an 1
interest in reviewing.
Through the variety of land use, efficiencies of the utility and roadway system the proposed PUD can I
maximize the development potential of the subject parcel while remaining sensitive to its unique natural
features. Powers Boulevard and State Highway 5 serve as a focus location for the City of Chanhassen
with respect to the downtown Chanhassen amenities.
I
The proposed site plan identified on plan sheet one of seven identifies the suggested layout of the
structures, roadway and parking areas. Several key issues identified on the site plan are proposed in order ,
to meet the City's objective of a PUD zoning district.
1. Construct West 78th Street according to the Year 2000 plan and 2/19/92 SRF Feasibility Study to
enable the Target site to be developed concurrently with an organized internal roadway system and II
coordinated access plan from West 78th Street.
2. Three full movement access locations are proposed from West 78th Street, one of which would directly
service Target, one would be a shared access and the third access would serve Outlot B. All three
access locations are proposed to service the James property to the north of West 78th Street. '
3. Target service area is to be accessed from Picha /Monterey Drive to minimize the impact on the existing
woodland at the southeast corner of the site.
4. The stormwater ponding area has been moved to the west and north of the previous location in order to I
minimize the impact upon the woodland within the southeast corner of the site. As a result the parking
lot has been re- arranged and pushed a bit further west. The access to West 78th Street continues to
remain in the same location, with slight modifications in the property lines and boundaries between the
Target site, Outlot A and Oudot B. Outlot B is proposed to be the area reserved for future
development of individual retail. Schematic plans of architectural styles and the theme of the
development will be presented, if it is agreed to proceed with Outlot B as shown.
5. Develop the site and incorporate the design objectives featured in the April 1992 West CBD sub -area I
study of signage, access, preservation, gateway and landscape buffer areas.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 4 I
1
1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1
The following items for discussion and explanation have been taken from Article VIII Planned Unit
I Developments section 20 -501 through 20 -504.
1. Allowable Uses
1 The proposed Target Retail store and the schematic Outlot B development is consistent with the Year
2000 comprehensive land use plan which identifies this site to be used for commercial purposes. The
current zoning of BG - a general business category is not equipped to coordinate a large, integrated site
1 development which is being proposed.
Specific uses and performance standards for this commercial site development are addressed later in the
1 narrative and on the plan sheets.
2. Preservation of desirable site characteristics, buffer areas, and protection of sensitive environmental
1 features including mature trees, ponding areas and scenic views.
The site is a combination of sloping land, containing open space, ponding areas, shrub massing and a
I significant woodland on the southeast corner. The open space areas south of the existing West 78th
Street is still in an agricultural state. Plan Sheet 2 - (existing conditions) identifies the existing
characteristics of the property. The existing utilities are shown on the map and the anticipated drainage
I patterns will be compatible to the SRF Feasibility Study for West 78th Street. The existing trees on the
southeast corner of the site have been inventoried and surveyed. The trees over six inches in caliper
diameter have been recorded with their size, species and physical condition. Generally, there are three
I significant tree groupings:
A. Boxelder with a few oak and elm
I B. Basswood with boxelder and a few oak, elm and ash
C. Oak with boxelder and a few elm and ash.
The significant clusters (B and C) with the dominate oak trees and other quality hardwoods have been
I designated to be preserved in most of their entirety. The trees designated for removal on the average
are the boxelder and elm clusters and individual hardwoods which have suffered disease or storm
damage. Refer to plan sheet seven of seven for a print of the tree survey. The replacement landscape
1 quantities identified in the plant schedule on the landscape plan replace the quality hardwoods lost to
the site improvement.
I The tree preservation plan includes thinning and removing all trees below 6" in caliper, all diseased
trees and all storm damaged trees in danger of falling over, in Outlot A. The plan was conceived in
recognition of discussions with the City staff and the developer (specifically note the May 15, 1992 and
I the May 20, 1992 letters between Todd Gerhardt, City staff, Don Ashworth, City Manager, and Bill
McHale, Ryan). In addition to the discussions and meetings held between July 20th and 31st.
1
1
1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 5
1
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1
1
3. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the coordination of
West 78th improvements, access to the site and coordination of the utility system.
West 78th Street has gone tlirough the feasibility phase and the cost of the upgrading are known. The
ability to refine the proposed grades of W. 78th Street at the entrance to the Target store will make for
a higher quality development. The in place sanitary and water mains on West 78th will adequately
service Outlot B and the Target Store. Access to Outlot B and the Target site will be constructed with
three full turning movement intersections along West 78th Street (see site plan).
The right of way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from center line for the entire length
of this development. 50 feet allows for the necessary 2 -thru traffic lanes, required turning lanes and,
in some areas, sidewalks and landscape boulevard, enabling this site to be compatible with the existing
Chanhassen CBD landscape pallet. Area has been set aside adjacent to Power Boulevard for the City to
create the Gateway landscape feature. Access between the Target site and the property to the east has
been requested and is shown on the plans; however, due to the need for a retaining wall on the south 1
side of West 78th Street on the Target site there is a 5'- 6' elevation difference at the Burdick property
line. Further site adjustments to the grades between the two properties will be necessary. The
developer is currently working with Mr. Burdick to coordinate the site development between these two 1
parcels.
4. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding community standards. Site planning,
landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the III
community.
The layout of the 10.36 acre Target site and Outlot B totalling 6.61 acres shall be committed to
architectural standards which will be established by the Target Store and compatible with the City
requirements. The site plan concentrates the ponding area into one location south of the parking lot
and west of the mature trees in Outlot A. The development plan for Target indicates a 79.8%
impervious hard surface coverage. The landscape plan identifies a higher percentage of required plant
stock to be installed as compensation on the slightly higher impervious ratio of 79.8 %.
The Target store is the only site of the development being proposed for site plan review at this time
and is identified on the attached plan sheets. Outlot B is identified on plan sheets 1A, 1B and 1C for
potential lot and building arrangements. These have been submitted for discussion purposes only and
will necessitate a formal review submittal process by the City separate from the Target submission.
Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property agent, 1
for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements. The basis of their
approval shall adhere to the general guidelines briefly mentioned above and more explicitly contained in
the Planned Unit Development, Developer's agreement for the Chanhassen Target Development. 1
A. Building Materials and Design shall be submitted directly to the City by Target.
1. All materials and colors shall be approved by the property agent prior to commencement of
property improvements.
2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER
Page 6
C g
1
I RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1
3. Stone shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
I 4. Concrete masonry details must be approved by Ryan prior to construction or alteration and shall
be finished in stone, textured or coated (smooth surface or rock face).
1 5. Metal siding will not be approved except as a support material to one of the above materials.
I 6. No ancillary structures that are considered to be part of the building structure can be constructed
without prior approval of Ryan Construction Company.
I 7. Sloping roof lines constructed of metal or asphaltic shingles which will adequately
conceal any rooftop mechanical equipment.
I B. Site Landscaping and Screening Standards
1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with
plantings and /or lawn materials.
I 2. Approved screening techniques shall be used to block sight lines from adjacent properties and
roadways of service area.
I 3. The master landscape plan for the PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site
development.
I 4. Landscaping as exceeding City codes and to be harmonious with existing streetscape
features has been proposed on the landscape plan.
I C. Open Space, Trails, Park Dedication
I 1. Outlot A for tree protection shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen. The additional 10
feet of right -of -way along West 78th totaling 0.27 acres shall be deducted from the park dedication
fees. Construction of the road, pond and suitable grading will be completed by the developer.
I The proposed park dedication fee is $2,500.00 /acre and the trail fee shall be $833.00 /acre. The
total amount due on a per acreage basis is $3,333.00. The total acreage to be assessed for the
Target proposal is 16.97 acres (10.36 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 and 6.61 acres, Outlot B). The
I amount due the City shall be paid at the same time permits are being purchased.
D. Signage
1 1. Identification Signs: Identification signs will be building mounted in conformance with the City's
sign ordinance and consistent with the Target standard. Each property shall be allowed one free
II mounted pylon sign located near the driveway into the private site.
2. Pylon Signs: Two pylon signs are contemplated as part of this development; one identifying
Target, to be located along Highway 5 and one identifying the retail area ( Outlot B). The location
1 of the pylon sign for the retail area in Outlot B shall be determined as part of the site plan
approval for Outlot B.
1
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 7
1
I
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1
3. Monument Signs: The retail businesses within Outlot B and the Target Store will have one
monument sign, each.
1
The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced
at the development's entrance monument, the signage monument adjacent to Highway 5 and used
I
throughout.
E. Lighting
1
1. A decorative, shoebox fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole
will be used throughout the development area for roadway and parking lot lighting.
I
2. The same lighting equipment that is mounted in the public street right of way shall be used in the
new public roadway areas. '
3. Lights will be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as dictated by yearly
conditions. This type of lighting is as energy efficient as possible.
I
* * * * *
Agreement with details of the PUD Concept plan for the Chanhassen Target Development and for site plan I
S P P P
approval of the Target Site is being sought on this first submission.
PLAN SHEET DEFINITION
The verbiage in the following section of the Narrative briefly describes the contents of the plan sheets that I
are part of the proposed Chanhassen Target PUD.
Sheet 1 - Master Site Plan: This plan sheet describes the basic intent of the entire development proposal. I
It includes, but is not limited to, the following items:
1. Identification of each lot. I
2. Location of building, service area, streets, pedestrian walks, parking and landscape
areas.
3. Location and extent of public and common open space ( Outlot A).
4. Location and general type of land uses and intensities of outlots.
Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions: The project boundaries are identified and existing conditions of the site 1
are shown through the use of a two foot topographical survey. Topographic information was provided by
the City and MnDOT and verified in the field. In addition, the adjoining properties, roadways and I
significant features are shown. A tree survey was completed on July 18 to identify and quantify species,
caliper inch and location. The trees found on site generally are within three basic groups (see Sheet 7).
1
1
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 8
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1
Sheet 3 - Concept Utility Plan: This plan identifies the location of the proposed water main, sanitary and
storm sewer for the Target site. In addition, the realignment of West 78th Street has been considered. The
development of the utility plan for Outlot B shall be prepared upon the site plan approval.
Water Main: Has been sized to effectively provide domestic and fire protection to each parcel. Looping
of the system will be completed per City requirements.
Sanitary
Sewer: The site is within the MWCC service area and service is available along existing West
' 78th Street. Inverts of the sanitary are deep enough to allow the road access to be lowered
from West 78th Street to the Target site.
Storm Sewer: Pre - development drainage patterns will be maintained, with the ponding area adjacent to
the Highway 5 embankment. All disturbed areas will be resurfaced with pavement, sod,
landscape materials or seeded to minimize erosion both during construction and after. The
ponding areas will be constructed per City of Chanhassen requirements and according to
1 the N.U.R.P. Design Guidelines.
Sheet 4 - Grading Drainage and Erosion Control: The grading plan identifies proposed contours,
ponding areas and suggest new roadway contours for West 78th Street. It is imperative the Ryan Team
and the City work together to construct West 78th and the Target proposal in concert. Due to the service
access for Target designed to come off of Picha, the floor elevation of Target has minimal ability to be
adjusted. The contours on West 78th Street will have to be adhered to in order for the entry grades for
the Target site plan to function properly. All contours shown are 2' contours.
' Sheet 5 - Landscape Plan, Exterior Lighting: The landscape plan identifies the location and placement
of all new plant material, ground cover, and surface treatment. In addition, the area identifying protection
of oak trees and other significant species is shown. All plant material will be installed per the planting
details and notes and will conform to the City standards and species. The plant material for the Target
site, which is being reviewed for site plan approval identifies caliper size, species and totals of plant
material proposed.
The landscape plan has been designed to exceed the value of plant material as stated in City Code Section
20 -1179, Landscape Standards. The projected value for the target development is 3.5 million dollars,
which would equate to an approximate value of 37,500.00 in tree and plant material costs. The base
quantity of plant material as shown on the plant schedule corresponds to a budget estimated at 37,000.00.
The enhanced quantity and value of the landscape plan i s being offered as compensation for the site's
impervious density ratio being at 79.8 percent versus the suggested 70 percent. Overall site
impervious /pervious calculations for the target site only including building coverage density are included
on the landscape plan.
Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat is a combination of two platted parcels and the vacated
western extension of West 78th Street. The proposed plat will be named Chanhassen Retail Addition with
a the Target site and two outlots proposed. Outlot A shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen.
1
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 9
1
RLK ASSOCIATES, SOC S, LTD.
1
Sheet 7 - Tree Inventory: The stand of existing trees have been inventoried with all trees over 6" in
caliper inch identified. The plan addresses all trees in size but makes no value of a Boxelder vs. an oak '
tree or the quality of the tree. It is anticipated 1500 caliper inches of quality hardwoods are being
retained. The quantity of quality trees proposed to be removed, excluding boxelder trees and /or diseased
or storm damaged trees, is estimated to be 360 caliper inches.
1
Sheet 1A, 1B and 1C - Schematic plans for Outlot B: The alternative plans have been submitted for
discussion purposes on the proposed development of Outlot B.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 10
1
1 �►
CITYOF
�
CHANHASSEN
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
N
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
1 FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant Executive Director
1 DATE: August 14, 1992
1 SUBJ: Consider Approval of Purchase Agreement with B. C. "Jim" Burdick/Brigitte
Burdick
1 Attached for your consideration is the purchase agreement between the HRA and B. C. and
Brigitte Burdick for the future development of a Target Store (Attachment #1) . Under this
' agreement, the HRA would be purchasing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Burdick Park
Second Addition/Lot 3, Block 2, Burdick Park Addition (Attachment #2) for $4.00 a square
foot and then reselling approximately 10 acres back to Target for $3.00 a square foot and the
' remaining outlots to Ryan Construction for $3.00 a square foot. The HRA would also retain
ownership of Outlot A and B, and Lot 3 for preserving the large stand of trees, city
maintenance of the holding pond area, construction of a gateway entrance on Outlot B and the
' resale of Lot 3 for future development (Attachment #3). The most important section of this
agreement is in Section 7, the Subsequent Sale Contingency on Page 10. This section
outlines that the HRA will only purchase this property on the condition that Target Stores and
1 Ryan Construction agree to a subsequent repurchase at the same time we will be closing. on
Lots 1 through 5 from Mr. Burdick (Attachment #1).
1 RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend approval of the purchase agreement with B. C. Burdick and Brigitte
Burdick for the acquisition of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Burdick Park Second Addition
and Lot 3, Block 2, Burdick Park Addition conditioned on the subsequent resale of a portion
of this property back to Ryan Construction and Target Stores, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Purchase Agreement
2. Location map of lots to be purchased
3. Future land ownership map
1 7 .14, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1
THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") made and entered into this
day of , 1992, by and between the
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a public body corporation and politic under the laws ,
of the State of Minnesota, with offices at 690 Coulter Drive,
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (referred to herein as the "Buyer "), ,
and B.C. BURDICK and BRIGITTE BURDICK, husband and wife, residing
at 615 Dream Island Road, Longboat Key, Florida 34228 (the
"Seller ").
RECITAL
The Buyer has eminent domain powers and is acquiring the ,
subject property described below under threat of condemnation.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND
AGREEMENTS HEREIN, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED BY SELLER AND
1
BUYER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. 1
SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND
1.1) Seller shall sell to Buyer and Buyer shall purchase '
from Seller, upon the terms and conditions hereof, the following
property (all collectively referred to as the "subject ,
property "):
1.1.1) The land in Carver County, Chanhassen (the
"City "), Minnesota, legally described as follows:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, BURDICK PARK SECOND 1
ADDITION, and Lot 3, Block 2, BURDICK PARK ADDITION
together with all right, title, and interest in and to any
roads or alleys adjoining or servicing such land, rights -
of -way, or easements appurtenant thereto, and in and to any
' V
t t �r
r 08/14/92
�9r`�
' ditch, water, or riparian rights and claims appurtenant
thereto, and to any unpaid award with respect thereto (the
"Land ");
' 1.1.2) Any improvements located on the Land;
' 1.1.3) All rents, leases, contract rights, causes of
action, permits, licenses, and other rights relating to the
Land and Improvements (the "Contract Rights "); and
' 1.1.4) All right, title, and interest of Seller in
and to any plans, specifications, surveys, studies, reports,
renderings, or drawings pertaining to the subject property
' and Improvements, including environmental, marketing and
related matters (the "Drawings ").
' SECTION 2.
PURCHASE PRICE
2.1) The purchase price for the subject property (the
"Purchase Price ") is Four and No /100 Dollars ($4.00) per square
1 foot and shall be payable by Buyer to Seller by check on the date
of closing.
' 2.2) Seller and Buyer agree the size of the subject
property is approximately six hundred eighty -four thousand
' (684,000) square feet. Upon receipt of final survey in a form
' acceptable to Seller and Buyer, the total square footage of the
subject property shall be determined by Seller and Buyer. Upon
1 such determination, Seller and Buyer shall adjust the Purchase
Price in order that the sum paid by Buyer to Seller equals Four
and 00/100 Dollars ($4.00) per square foot for the purchase of
the subject property.
I SECTION 3.'
TITLE MATTERS
3.1) Seller shall furnish to Buyer within twenty (20) days
hereof a current commitment for the issuance of a 1987/1990 ALTA
Form B owner's policy of title insurance (the "Commitment ")
1
-2-
issued by a title company acceptable to Buyer ( "Title ") in the
amount of Two Million Seven Hundred Thirty -six Thousand and '
No /100 Dollars ($2,736,000.00), committing to insure that Buyer
will have good and marketable title to the subject property, free ,
of any and all standard and other exceptions to title, except
matters to which Buyer may consent in writing. ,
3.2) Buyer agrees, prior to closing, to obtain from the
City of Chanhassen the vacation of any part of West 78th Street
formerly known as CSA Highway No. 16 located within the '
boundaries of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, BURDICK PARK SECOND
ADDITION. ,
3.3) In the event any exceptions are listed in the
Commitment for title insurance, if the same results from any
voluntary action by the Seller, the Seller shall promptly cause ,
the exception to be removed. With regard to any other exceptions,
if the Seller fails to remove the same within the time allowed '
for closing on the subject property, the Buyer shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement as the Buyer's sole and '
exclusive remedy.
SECTION 4.
CLOSING
4.1) If the contingencies specified herein have been
satisfied, the closing (the "Closing ") shall be at a location ,
designated by Buyer, and shall occur on or before October 15,
1992 (the "Closing Date "). If the contingencies have not been '
satisfied or waived by the benefitting party, this Agreement
shall be null and void. In the event formal closing does not
1
-3-
1
1 occur prior to November 1, 1992, due to no fault of the Seller,
the Buyer may, however, extend the closing up to six (6) months
1 by paying to Seller on the first day of each month of the
' extension a sum equal to one -half of one percent of the agreed
Purchase Price; if this privilege is exercised the first such
1 payment to be due November 1, 1992.
4.2) On the Closing Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer
1 possession of the subject property vacant and free of any and all
debris. Until possession is delivered to Buyer, Seller shall keep
and maintain the subject property in a neat and orderly condition
and shall not alter or damage any part thereof. Seller shall not
remove any dirt, trees, shrubs, or other natural growth, except
1 as to keep the subject property in a neat and orderly condition.
4.3) On the Closing Date, Seller shall execute and deliver
1 to Buyer:
1 .3.1) A duly executed warranty deed, free from any
exceptions;
4.3.2) A customary affidavit that there are no
unsatisfied judgments of record, no actions pending in any
state federal courts, no tax liens, and no bankruptcy
proceeding filed against Seller, and no labor has or
' materials have been furnished to the subject property for
which payment has not been made, and that to the best of
Seller's knowledge there are no unrecorded interests
' relating to the subject property;
4.3.3) An abstract of title for the subject property
duly certified as to judgments, tax liens, property taxes,
special assessments, and bankruptcies.
4.4) Seller shall pay all real estate taxes due in years
1 prior to Closing, together with any taxes and special assessments
deferred. Seller and Buyer shall divide the general real estate
taxes due and payable in the year of closing as follows:
1
-4-
1
one -half Seller, one -half Buyer. Seller shall pay all 1
installments of levied special assessments due on or before May
15, 1992. Except as provided in the previous sentence, Buyer
shall pay or assume all pending and levied special assessments. '
Buyer shall be responsible for all real estate taxes, if any, due
and payable in years subsequent to Closing, which is established ,
herein as being the year 1992.
4.5) Seller shall pay at Closing: ,
4.5.1) state deed tax;
4.5.2) all costs of obtaining and updating the
abstract to the subject property, including name searches,
tax searches, bankruptcy searches, and property inspection
fees;
4.5.3) recording fees for corrective instruments
required to remove encumbrances and place marketable title
in Buyer's name;
4.5.4) Seller shall provide Buyer with copies of all
surveys in Seller's possession.
4.6) Buyer shall pay at Closing: '
4.6.1) all recording fees and charges relating to the
filing of the deed; and
4.6.2) title insurance commitment fees and title
insurance premiums; and
4.6.3) if Buyer desires a survey other than a pre-
existing survey supplied by Seller, Buyer shall pay all fees
and costs incurred in obtaining such survey of the subject
property.
4.7) Seller and Buyer shall equally share the Closing fee
charged by the title company, if any. •
1
-5-
1
' SECTION 5.
COVENANTS, REPRESENTATIONS, AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER
5.1) Seller, as an inducement to Buyer to enter into this
Agreement, and as part of the consideration therefor, represents,
warrants, and covenants with Buyer and its successors and assigns
that:
1 5.1.1) There are no leases, options, purchase
agreements, rights to redeem, tenancy agreements, or rights
' of occupancy, written or verbal, and no person or party has,
or will have any rights of adverse possession, regarding the
subject property;
' 5.1.2) Seller will maintain in force insurance
against public liability from such risk and to such limits
as in accordance with prudent business practice and suitable
11 to the subject property from the date hereof to the Closing
Date;
5.1.3) To the best of Seller's knowledge, neither
Seller, nor any entity or person has, at any time:
i) "released" or actively or passively
consented to the "release" or "threatened release" of
any Hazardous Substance (as defined below) from any
"facility" or "vessel" located on or used in
' connection with the subject property; or
ii) taken any action in "response" to a
"release" in connection with the subject property; or
iii) otherwise engaged in any activity or
omitted to take any action which could subject Seller
' or Buyer to claims for intentional or negligent torts,
strict or absolute liability, either pursuant to
statute or common law, in connection with Hazardous
Substances (as defined below) located in or on the
subject property, including the generating,
transporting, treating, storage, or manufacture of any
Hazardous Substance (as defined below). The terms set
' within quotation marks above shall have the meaning
given to them in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et
' seq., as amended ( "CERCLA ") and any state environ-
mental laws. "Hazardous Substances" means hazardous
waste, toxic substances, formaldehyde, urea,
polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, petroleum,
' natural gas, synthetic gas usable for fuel or mixtures
thereof, any materials related to any of the
foregoing, and substances defined as "hazardous
-6-
1
substances ", "toxic substances ", "hazardous waste ", 1
"pollutant ", or "contaminant" in CERCLA, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act as amended, 41 U.S.C.
Sec. 9601 et seq., the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq., the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq., any
state laws regarding environmental matters, or any
regulations promulgated pursuant to any of the
foregoing statutes.
Seller shall indemnify Buyer, its successors and assigns,
against, and shall hold Buyer, its successors and assigns,
harmless from, any and all losses, liabilities, claims,
fines, penalties, forfeitures, damages, administrative
orders, consent agreements and orders, and the costs and
expenses incident thereto, including, without limitation,
reasonable attorneys' fees, consultants' fees and laboratory
fees, which may at any time be imposed upon, incurred by or
awarded against Buyer as a result of or in connection with
the breach of any of the above representations and
warranties, whether such breach is discovered before or
after closing. Each of the above representations and
warranties shall survive the closing. Consummation of this
Agreement by Buyer with knowledge of any such breach by
Seller shall not constitute a waiver or release by Buyer of
any claims arising out of or in connection with such breach;
5.1.4) To the best of Seller's knowledge neither
Seller, nor any entity or person has, at any time,
installed, used, or removed any underground storage tank on
or in connection with the subject property;
5.1.5) As part of this agreement, Seller shall
execute the well disclosure certificate attached hereto as
Exhibit "A ". Seller shall deliver the well certificate to
Buyer on the date of execution of this agreement. Seller
warrants that all statements set forth in the well
certificate are true, accurate, and complete to the best of
Seller's knowledge.
5.2) The covenants, representations, and warranties
contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to benefit Buyer and its
successors and assigns and shall survive any termination or 1
expiration of this Purchase Agreement or the giving of the Deed.
All of Seller's covenants, representations and warranties in this
Agreement shall be true as of the date hereof (and shall be a
condition precedent to the performance of Buyer's obligations
1
-?-
1
1
1 hereunder) and as of the Closing Date. If Buyer discovers that
any such covenant, representation, or warranty is not true, Buyer
1 may elect prior to closing, in addition to any of its other
' rights and remedies, to cancel this Agreement, or Buyer may
postpone the Closing Date up to ninety (90) days to allow time
1 for correction. Buyer shall not be deemed to have waived any
claims for breach of warranty if Buyer consummates the
1 transaction set forth in this Agreement with the knowledge that
one or more of Seller's warranties are false.
1 5.3) Seller is, or by Closing will be, the sole owner of
11 fee simple absolute title to the subject property and has all
requisite power and authority to execute and deliver this
' Agreement and the documents listed in Section 4 above.
SECTION 6.
' ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND TESTING CONTINGENCY
6.1) Prior to the Closing of the transaction contemplated
1 by this Agreement, Buyer and its agents shall have the right, at
its sole option, to enter the subject property without charge and
' at all reasonable times, to perform such environmental
investigation and tests as Buyer may reasonably deem appropriate.
If Buyer investigates and tests the subject property pursuant to
' this section, Buyer shall pay all costs and expenses of such
investigation and testing and shall hold Seller harmless from all
1 costs and liabilities arising out of Buyer's activities. If the
' purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement is not closed,
Buyer shall repair and restore any damage to the subject property
' caused by Buyer's environmental investigation or testing, at
1
-8-
1
Buyers expense, and shall return the subject property to
substantially the same condition as existed prior to such entry.
Buyer will make a good faith effort not to damage any crops
during testing. Buyer will furnish Seller a copy of all 1
environmental reports it receives.
6.2) The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement are 1
contingent upon each of the following (the "Environmental
Contingencies "):
6.2.1) The representations and warranties of Seller
set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement must be true as of
the date of this Agreement and on the Closing Date, and
Seller shall have delivered to Buyer at Closing a certifi-
cate dated the Closing Date, signed by Seller, certifying
that such representations and warranties are true as of the
Closing Date.
6.2.2) Buyer shall have determined on or before the 1
Closing Date, that it is satisfied, in its sole discretion,
with the results of and matters disclosed by any environ-
mental
investigation or testing of the subject property.
If either of the Environmental Contingencies have not been
satisfied on or before the Closing Date, then Buyer may, at
Buyer's option, terminate this Agreement by giving written notice ,
to Seller on or before the Closing Date. Upon such termination,
neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under
1
this Agreement. The Environmental Contingencies are for the sole
and exclusive benefit of Buyer, and Buyer shall have the right to
waive the Environmental Contingencies by giving written notice to
Seller.
1
1
1
-9-
1
SECTION 7.
CONTINGENCIES
' 7.1) Seller acknowledges that Buyer is purchasing the
' subject property for the subsequent sale and transfer of a
portion of the subject property to Target Stores, a Division of
1 Dayton Hudson Corporation, and the subsequent sale and transfer`
of the remaining portion of the subject property to Ryan
1 Construction of Minnesota, Inc. Buyer's obligation to perform
under this Agreement is contingent upon the simultaneous closing
1 of the above described transactions with the transaction
contemplated under this Agreement.
7.2) The parties' respective obligations to sell and
1 purchase the subject property is further contingent upon an
agreement with Target allowing access from Lot 1, Block 3,
1 BURDICK PARK ADDITION, to the Target store.
1 SECTION 8.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The Seller agrees that as additional consideration for the
1 purchase and sale of the subject property, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3,
BURDICK PARK ADDITION, shall be part of the planned unit
development consisting of the subject property and other lands.
SECTION 9.
MISCELLANEOUS
9.1) The covenants and representations made by Seller shall
survive the Closing of this transaction.
1 9.2) Seller hereby indemnifies Buyer for any claim, cost,
or damage related to any brokerage fee due because of this
1 Agreement.
1
-10-
1
9.3) Any notice, demand, or request which may be permitted,
required or desired to be given in connection herewith shall be
in writing and sent by certified mail, hand delivery, overnight
mail service such as Federal Express or other form of telegraphic
communication, directed to Seller or Buyer. Any notice shall be
deemed effective when delivered to the party to whom it is 1
directed. Unless other addresses are given in writing, notices
shall be sent to Seller or Buyer at the following addresses:
If to Seller: B.C. Burdick and Brigitte Burdick
426 Lake Street
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
with a copy to: William F. Kelly
Kelly Law Offices
351 Second Street
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 1
If to Buyer: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for the City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
with a copy to: Roger N. Knutson
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
9.4) Time shall be of the essence in this Agreement. Where
any date or time prescribed by this Agreement falls on a
Saturday, Sunday or statutory holiday, such date or time shall
automatically be extended to the next normal business day.
9.5) Each party hereto shall promptly, on the request of
the other party, have acknowledged and delivered to the other
party any and all further instruments and assurances reasonably
requested or appropriate to evidence or give effect to the
1
provisions of this Agreement.
1
-11-
1
9.6) This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject property and all prior
agreements, understandings, or negotiations between the parties
1 are hereby revoked and superseded hereby. No representations,
warranties, inducements, or oral agreements have been made by any
1 of the parties, except as expressly set forth herein, or in other
contemporaneous written agreements. This Agreement may not be
1 changed, modified or rescinded, except by a written agreement
' signed by both parties hereto. Seller and Buyer shall have the
right to modify, amend, or cancel this Agreement without the
' consent or approval of any real estate broker or agent. Under no
circumstances, including, without limitation, any default(s) of
' Seller and /or Buyer under this Agreement, will: (a) any real
estate broker or agent be entitled to any commission unless the
' Closing actually occurs, or to any notice under this Agreement;
1 or (b) Buyer have any liability and /or obligation for payment of
any commission or other compensation to any real estate broker or
1 agent regarding this Agreement.
9.7) If Buyer defaults under any of the terms hereof, then
r Seller shall have the right, in addition to whatever other
remedies are available to Seller at law or in equity, including
without limitation, specific performance, damages, including
1 attorney's fees, to cancellation of this Agreement.
9.8) If Seller defaults under any of the terms hereof,
f including, without limitation, the delivery of marketable title
to the subject property as set forth in Section 4 hereof, and any
of Seller's representations, covenants, and warranties in Section
1
-12-
1
5 hereof, then Buyer shall have the right, in addition to 1
whatever other remedies are available to Buyer at law or in
equity, including without limitation, specific performance,
damages, including attorney's fees, to cancellation of this 1
Agreement.
9.9) If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or
unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this
Agreement, which shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. 1
9.10) Failure of any party to exercise any right or option 1
arising out of a breach of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of any right or option with respect to any subsequent or 1
different breach, or the continuance of any existing breach.
9.11) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be 1
binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs,
personal representatives, successors and assigns.
9.12) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
9.13) At Buyer's request, a memorandum of this Agreement 1
shall be executed by Buyer and Seller and filed of record in
Carver County, Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 1
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
•
1
1
1
-13-
1
BUYER: SELLER:
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
' AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1 BY:
Clark Horn, Chairperson .C. BURDICK
AND y ��
Don Ashworth, Exec. Director BR TTE B CK
1
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER
' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1992, by Clark Horn and by Don
Ashworth, respectively the Chairperson and Executive Director of
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Chanhassen, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of
the State of Minnesota, on its behalf.
1
NOTARY PUBLIC
1
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
1 (
COUNTY OF fl V ) ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
' / 3 day of ' (4- (it S 1 , - by B.C. Burdick and
Brigitte Burdick, husband an. w'fe.
/ NOTARY UBLIC
1
DRAFTED BY:
1 Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
' Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452 -5000
JRW:srn
1
-14-
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
of WELL DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE al
PLEASE TYPE ALL INFORMATION
A. PROPERTY SELLER INFORMATION 1
Seller's last name ,, 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1, 1 1, 1
Date of closing the sale , , , , , , , Total number of wells , , II
MMDDYY
B. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
II
Attach a legal description of property in addition to the applicable property
information requested below. -
II _ ,
House number Street name Type D
1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,- 1 1 1 1 1 _ .. _ � -
City Zip code
If applicable.
II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Addition name Block number Lot number
C. PROPERTY BUYER INFORMATION - -_ - - 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
First name MI Last name
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - -
Company name if applicable
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II -
Address
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Address
I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
City State Zip code
1 1 1/ 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 -- -- -- -- II Phone number
D. CERTIFICATION BY SELLER
I certify that the information provided on this certificate is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
I
Signature of Seller or Designated Representative of Seller Date -'
E. CERTIFICATION BY BUYER
In the absence of a seller's signature, the buyer, or person authorized to act on behalf of the buyer may sign this well certificate. No
signature is required by the buyer if the seller has signed above.
Based on disclosure information provided to me by the Seller or other available information, I osrtity that the Information provided above
is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. •
•
Signature of Buyer or Designated Representative of Buyer Date II
F. CONTRACT FOR DEED PROPERTY TRANSFERS DEED ONLY
The buyer, or person authorized to act on behalf of the buyer, must sign a Well Disclosure Certificate for all warranty deeds given in
fulfillment of a contract for deed. If there are no known wells on the property, check the box below.
0 t certify that I know of no wells on the property described herein.
Signature of Buyer or Designated Representative of Buyer Date
EXHIBIT "A" 1
...
I 4.
I in
_
\
'c
CC
■ - 4. Y 1
I . -
OUTLOT C.)
1
s4 0 I
1
1 2
. - i Fr
I 1 ° . OS CO
‘ k0 C" /
1
•
it
1
1 2
B t L a"
;"' 0 - C>
k\ C)\4.
=
\./ 3 Ck C) su
V" a)
1 I 2WEST ■W 2
-.4
i 76. 7"6, s■ %‘ k 4
1 C
ILI
X:
1
y? ; BLOCK 2
• \ I\C/ I Lt>.
• 43
2
... • . ...
11 lo■, , :
Hitme
r C. S A I l'"'"---''-t--------.--....
' -.-.-..- 2 1 ...
`6÷
: r
::. • . : ....„„--.. „.. ,,,.- .... ,....;.. .-.. K
• ..• ?..‘• 0 PA ?;:-304rd:elil
) -
•
1 .i :4 --- :: :PYTIP‘";.. .-.. ...'''..:1.: .4 e :"
.:. • .:.: ..; -. . - ;. , Ai:tu4w.:::::0:::.::::W.r..i:A....M....;a4.:
1.3 ACRE ..; : .,' .6 ACR =1,1ga
. ::.: : :.,4. .-.,: ::: ,..i.,.. ., --,-,....::„.::: ,,,,..::::,:r.
I . ,
- . .
. . -.,,,. .. . ..., . ...-- •,......,...,..,.:.:„.„
. . ... .. 4 ,„..,....... .... .....,.....,.. :::*=:::::m.::::.:::::sx:›:mzo;A::c
.* ':.(:). --... .:4ND 4.::' ;'*01:Kg:.r5tirkeiirfijiiiil.i.*;;',..i.i;:Nefiy:
.... - ',. Ci..,_,.:... ' •• 1::?.,:i ''W.:4' IV*V.:0.:?::.::NRA::
. 1 4,z, ---.... :- • •::.::
• •:......,...''• •.' :::,314.-tsgw.lro:m.z§§e.:::::m...,,:ov..4‘4..tin
L
1 . ,/ .
.
-
4... •...N<,.,:...:.....mttog:ggix:::::me:::::ad....1§::0: PICMA
.,. „.;iii,,...,0,,.:%;ongs....ii.;i:i1. DRIVE I
#' .t.40.:::4Pc.:: ' ACRES ......
. . .....„..„:::., :...„:;:„::::::§::::
. •,..„.:.:.: :,... ::.::::,..:::.:.:,:vi,:‘,:::,::::..o..Aws.§::., t c..> ;
1 .. • ::.:.:04ifaelto:i1:4.4i:::m
.. :-::::::-•::::m:0::::
• i • .
,-.V.IViTrAm:::::::iigi,v,.k. • CD
•
.,...., .‘ ,...,.i....-.:..„..,..i...!` ;
:ft...„,,_
...1.:'
/lb 0
ir::::::::::k•Wm:af' .4
AC
1 . '
. ,..:..: ...... %ROAD
.....--
•
-... ?
111 • . %. - et 4 ...---------#. -Tuki
CITY CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA •
1 : ZONING - BG - GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT _SQUARE FOOTAGE/ACRES MAP REFERENCE
I BURDICK PARK ADDITION
• NC). 7
..
BURDICK PARK 2ND ADDITION SEE ATTACHED BASE MAP
1 ------- -..............,.........o
X 442eAseo 74- Jr.2-
ummorma R $ i 1
--- - i \---1 •
'' °;:
• �...� . , . ti
9 ii
0) -' _rte
II -mo
1 •
•
■■■■ I . .d. .: •;• . s 41. .„, -/ .,--:-.: ti
. :• tie .* . 1 / / dillti
i et,
._
.- 1 , - " / J ./ l&
L ,.
If
it
It. l'''' _
. ,t
,,/ .."
I f; .
il "T 7 /..N / I ' //
MO
4 . CI E
. oi l
al
/ 1 _ , ■7" ,
e : / if\
I
i
f
I
en CI' .-
2sa a � 41111 I"
I 40
in
3 oa � t t . .* . =-' . I E
111 14 66 JJ • i t ,",,,� -rte , s, •R 3 ,..__, , 1 1.4
. , I N . .iiiAft fi, . , 4 ,,, tin
I 4 ._ _ - .4.-....` --ai 1 I.
1 lel •
.1 0 . i 1
f f i , i i .,,
t1 ' H
1
I
r -• BRAY DRIVE
1 J t
— .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II August 19, 1992 -- Page 11
Batzli: You're comfortable with that? That that's included?
I Aanenson: Yes. And I've.checked with the Carver County Recorder's Office
and they are willing to accept it this way.
1 Ahrens: Did you read through this legal description?
Aanenson: Yes.
I Batzli: If there's no more discussion, I'll call the question.
I Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #92 -9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a 19 acre
parcel, subject to the following conditions:
I 1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a development contract stating
that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time
that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are
I available, or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the
10 acre density as required by ordinance.
I 2. A driveway easement is secured and recorded allowing for access to the
remaining 14 acre parcel. More particularly, to that portion which
lies north and east of the ravine.
I All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL /RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD, TARGET
1 DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
1 Name Address
Judy Landkammer 6901 Utica Lane
I B.C. "Jim" Burdick Excelsior
Bill McHale 12237 Chadwick Lane
Rick Whitaker 9225 Rhode Island
I Margaret D. Fleck
Fran Hagen, II 4426 Haven Avenue
8683 Shayview Court
John Dietrich 2721 Colfax Avenue So.
Tom Legierski, James Co. 6640 Shady Oak Road
I Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road
Doug Kunin Eckankar
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
1 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
1 Batzli: Thanks Kate. Anyone on the Commission, would anyone like to ask
Kate any questions before we ask the applicant to make the presentation?
Okay, would the applicant like to give their presentation.
Planning Commission Meeting
August. 19, 1992 - Page 12
Bill McHale: Good evening. I'm Bill McHale with Ryan Construction. I
will mostly be addressing our concept, as we're talking about it Outlot 8.'
I've got with me Margaret Fleck who is the architect for Target and I thin
it's probably most appropriate that she go through that site, the building,
etc. which is obviously the driving force behind the development and once
any questions have been answered there, then I'd just like to make some
comments about the concept on the outlots. Margaret.
Margaret Fleck: I'm going to begin by just showing you what our standard I
new P193 prototype is and this is the new prototype. It's slightly
different than what you've been seeing. Earlier renditions where we had a
red truss system and it was also exposed. It's a fairly simple building.
Two tone and it has an asymmetrical.
Batzli: Excuse me, can you maybe move the stand a little bit forward so
it's larger on the monitors and we can see it.
Margaret Fleck: This is just for you to get an overview of what our
prototype was. Or is. This is what we are proposing to put on the site.
It's varied quite a bit. We're putting a pier element in that projects ou'
from the wall surface and breaks up the wall surface. We've added what we
call our Greatland colors. The blue and the green. It's normally in only
our Greatlands but we feel that it's appropriate here to break up the
surface of the wall again. We've put the gateway that's very similar to
our Greatland stores in here and have stayed with our prototypical colors.
It is a masonry building. It's what we call rockface. I believe the term,
that was used in the staff proposal or narrative was, weathered. And that
is very similar to this element right here. It looks like a piece of rock
rather than just a fiat surface element and I will just set that down if II
somebody wants to grab it and feel it. The colors are very specifically
chosen by our people to try to keep a certain image. It is a coated
surface which is a sealant that coats the block or the masonry. The lower
portion of the masonry is an 8 x 16 block. The upper colors, the lighter
color is an 8 x 8 block. The massing changes along in here also so that w
have some variation. We've completed and followed this through on all the
other sides. The line here that I'm showing, we had a conceptual II difficulty here. When I was first having this developed by my architect,
he misinterpretted the grades and this is the true grade here. This area
here will be changing to look a little, a bit more like this massing rathe
than the piers. There is a standing seam roof on the front entry area tha�
does return and go back and show it's face, just a side face on 78th
Street. Does anybody have any particular questions on this? In general,
that's the basic building. We are 375 feet in front and approximately 400 '
feet front to back.
Aanenson: If I could make just one comment. One suggestion we had to was
that they put tree wells between those columns so we put that in the staff
report to soften the building.
Ahrens: Put what? 1
Aanenson: Trees in wells or something along that sidewalk between the
columns. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 13
Margaret Fleck: In the sidewalk area we could leave, put leave outs and
' add. We would like to stay with an oranmental tree. A smaller, maybe
blossoming tree and keep it away from the actual building foundation that
we could place then right along in here. And it already begins to be a
landscape area up here so you already see them being reflected. I could
even bring them to this distance. I would prefer not to bring anything
within the gateway area.
' Emmings: ...is the south facing, west side of the building? And the side
that faces 78th Street is which one?
' Margaret Fleck: This one.
Emmings: Okay.
' Margaret Fleck: This is, again the rear of the building. This would be
the one going to.
11 Batzli: The loading dock area is the lower corner on the right?
Margaret Fleck: Yeah, this would be the highway side and that would be the
direction they're running into and this is actually, excuse me. Along here
would also be the dock area.
' Batzli: Okay.
Margaret Fleck: There was also another comment in the staff report about
rooftop units not showing and we did go ahead and do a sight line study
which I have copies of. I apologize for not getting these here earlier.
The study was done from two points on TH 5. A high point that would be
looking from up here across and none of the rooftop, well the rooftop units
' shows by .01 foot which is about a 1/16 of an inch. And that's with a 4
foot additional parapet from what we do on prototypes. There is one
element that does show currently. It's a satellite dish which would be
positioned right here. It's mounted from the rooftop, it mounts and goes
to 9 feet above the rooftop. You would see 3 feet of it. It's
approximately an 8 foot round satellite dish. You're going to be seeing
that the upper half of the sphere of it for 3 feet. So your top element
' would be 3 feet and you're only going to see about 6 feet across and that
would hit right about here. And that would be seen from really TH 5 only.
It's for communication to our district offices of our sales data, etc. and
' it's a very important element to our operation of our buildings. And part
of it is also transmitting orders. That type of thing.
Farmakes: Is it necessary that it be placed on the roof?
Margaret Fleck: Our normal effort is to do it up on the rooftop. I don't
know where we'd put it down on the ground and really have transmissions
that we need.
Farmakes: The total height there is?
' Margaret Fleck: The total height of the building here is 28 foot 8. And
that's at the high point here. It does go... You're seeing, that's the 28
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 14
II
foot 8. 26 foot 8 is right here.
Batzli: Does anyone else have any questions on the Commission? 1
Erhart: The pitched part of the roof is only over the opening? Over the '
entranceway.
Margaret Fleck: Yes it is. That's, we worked a great deal on that and
that is one thing that I went back to my people and we just feel very I
strongly that it's an entrance element that really is, reads entrance to
it. Especially on a commercial building of this type. And I made an
effort, I can honestly say, for some depth.
1
Aanenson: We also asked that the element be carried, instead of just the
front facing Powers Boulevard but that element be wrapped around West 78th
Margaret Fleck: When I came in to the staff, it was actually narrower tha I
this and I have widened it to 12 feet from the 8 feet I previously did,
which isn't a great deal but I went back and tried to get more than that. I
In fact, when I first originally designed this, I had a larger pitch. I
can honestly say that it's going to be a big question. I could go back and
tell them that it's being asked for. It's a cost. It's a great deal of I
cost.
Ahrens: It's a cost and not a...design. ...people won't find the entranc
to Target.
Margaret Fleck: No. They're not really concerned about that but it is
architecturally an element that should be read for an entrance. If we
bring it along this side, it reads that something should be there that is I
not truly there.
Ahrens: According to them.
1
Margaret Fleck: According to all of us, yeah for a pier. And then there's
the cost of it. It doesn't do anything for our building whereas using it I
for an entrance identification, it does do something for our building and
can rationalize that cost. You're talking another $100,000.00 when you
start turning around the corner. And a maintenance problem.
1
Krauss: If I could touch on that for a bit. Well first of all we're not
asking you to look at cost projections and decide what's reasonable. Our
concern here, as Kate indicated earlier, we took the very unusual step of '
laying out a proposed or potential site plan since we knew Target was in
the market for the site ahead of receiving their ideas on this property.
And we factored in a list of items that we felt were important for the
City. We being members of the planning staff, engineering staff, the HRA,
Planning Commission, and City Council had a meeting. One of the things
that came across very clearly is that a Target store or anything else on
that block should not turn it's back on downtown. Therefore we felt it wa�
important that since we knew that the primary entrance would be oriented to
the west, but visually, architecturally the importance of the 78th Street
frontage needs to be expressed and needs to be carried around on that side
and that was our concern with that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 15
Margaret Fleck: And if I can interject on that. We really felt like we
did that without having to add a rooftop element where anybody that's in a
car or even walking in the area is going to have to look up 30 feet to see
in comparison to piers that we put in and massing that we put in as it's
' brought down into a human scale. A walking and residential scale and
that's really where we felt the money was appropriate. Not up at the 30
foot height level. One of the things I possibly could look into is going
' on the 78th Street side with an element on the piers that gave you a little
bit of a, very similar to what you have. Just a framework like you have at
your, I believe it's the fire station across the street. That type of
thing.
1 Aanenson: This all will be...during the site plan review too. These are
some of the issues that we've raised and we're moving in that direction.
Batzli: Kate, let me ask one question about the report. You have staff
recommends the pitch element be carried around the West 78th Street side of
the building. You have in the next sentence, you're recommending that the
design be further refined to offer roofline elements consistent with
downtown Chanhassen. Are these two separate issues or are we talking about
the same thing?
Aanenson: Are you on the last page of the recommendations?
Batzli: Page 3. New page 3. First full paragraph. Is this one and the
same issue or are there two different issues here on our roofline?
' Aanenson: Same issue. Carrying that pitch around and trying to reflect
the other elements we've got with Market Square and the visibility from
West 78th. They've oriented toward Powers but we're also saying that
that's a long segment of wall too on West 78th that should also have a
front door look.
Batzli: Yeah, okay. Go ahead.
1 Margaret Fieck: Do you have any more questions for me?
Batzli: I don't think we do right now.
Farmakes: I have one further question. You show trees on the bottom two
views and then as you work your way up to the top the trees become much
more scarce. Is there a line of thinking that it was important to see the
building and that that interferes with the sight line for identification
or, even when there's no signage on the one side?
1 Margaret Fieck: At this point in the development of the site plan, this is
a landscaped area behind. We do not have a roadway back there so there is
landscaping shown. That's the same along the sides and along the sides
1 here and all the way around the far side. This is quite a large area of
trees. That's that lot that's being saved. It was just one, we don't
normally care for maintenance reasons for leaves being on our sidewalk
where our customers roll their carts and that type of thing. To put trees
in if we can help it. We do do it and we will be happy to do it in this '
condition. It's just something that we don't normally do automatically.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 16
And then there is, the main concern is to have some visual clearance for
the sign at the building because it is another identifying element. i
Farmakes: So it's not the building itself. It's just the logo and the
entrance? '
Margaret Fleck: Yeah, that I would need to maintain the clearance for.
That and just a general area in here and sidewalk area. Our sidewalks are
meant for our customers to be able to traverse into our building and not
have to walk a great deal in the driveway.
Erhart: Jeff, you're talking about trees adjacent to the building? ,
Farmakes: I'm talking about there's four views there and...if you look at
the bottom two, there's several trees running along the plane of the
building. On the upper two, there are very few. I'm just wondering,
marketing wise, the intent.
Erhart: Yeah, and your suggestions is...you're suggesting that you might 1
want to have trees next to the building to further screen, is that correct.
Farmakes: I guess that would be somewhat consistent with what we've been II
requiring on other things. However, I wanted to know what their thinking
was as far as marketing the site.
Margaret Fleck: On the West 78th Street, I'm not sure we're showing all 1
the trees that would be there. Next to the building, exactly next to the
building there's only a 3 foot sidewalk which has an overhang of 2 feet fo
your...
Bill McHale: The landscape plan will. The depiction is, there's actually
trees along the boulevard but they're not right next to the building so II
from the roadway you don't have any problems. That's all trees and the
elevations she's showing you doesn't step back to the street to see the
trees. One of the reasons that we don't have much room in there is becaus
the building, pursuant to staff, was pushed further north to save the big
grouping of trees adjacent to the freeway and that limited the area. That
elevation, it really isn't representative...
Margaret Fleck: ...the architecture, not the trees.
Aanenson: If I could make a clarification on that too. Actually at this
point...
Erhart: We're ultimately waiting for the developer to do some drawings of '
trees.
Margaret Fleck: We'll be happy to.
Farmakes: No, but if you're tacking about adding elements to the side of II
the building to improve the look of the building. If we cover it up by
trees, there are ornamental trees, it is kind of dubious whether or not
we're gaining anything.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 17
Margaret Fleck: They could be shurbs, if you want some greenery or they
could be flowered plants. You know I mean we can work with that.
Batzli: Thank you.
Bill McHale: I don't have any pictures to look at so this is going to be
dry. All I'd like to do is give you I guess our reasons for why we're
going through kind of an awkward process with one site that's so refined
and one that we're getting arms around everybody getting comfortable with.
Obviously Target is what's leading the direction and the outlots and the
compatibility to develop them I think is something that's desired by the
' City and Target and that's what we're trying to effect right now. One of
the things that I feel strongly about is we need the flexibility to develop
this site and that's why we're looking for something. If we're to commit
' going here, we need to know what our possibilities are. A couple comments.
We're real comfortable with the materials that the staff has recommended
and that the buildings on Outlot 8 are compatible. We don't want them to
look the same but we do think similar materials and the materials you use
in downtown would be certainty acceptable. That's no problem for us at
all. There's questions in the staff report regarding setbacks. One of the
problems we're having and we feel that the PUD should allow us a
' flexibility to some of those setbacks is, in addition to setting back from
the roadway, there are some utility lines that exist in the existing 78th
that can't be moved. That we can't build on top of. Target has concerns
about sight lines and we're trying to preserve ones to the main
intersections which should be to everybody's advantage. If you take all
that into consideration and then you set back everything, the projected 50
feet, in some cases there aren't building pads available. If we can't
build on it, we can't buy it and then we're left with the question with,
who's going to pay for the open space. So we think that if you look at the
entire Outlot B and have some flexibility, we think we can work that out.
' We are not sure where the two fast food restrictions came from. In talking
to Kate earlier, I'm not sure that she knows for sure. I sent a letter to
Don Ashworth after several of our meetings a long time ago and told him
that we felt that that was somewhat problematic. We would like the market
to determine the appropriate uses. We think we can work within the
landscape requirements. The City's parking requirements but we feel
strongly that anything that's zoned for that area should be allowed. We
have no problem working with staff and approving one building at a time. In
fact, that's the way we'd prefer to do it. That's why we agreed with staff
to come up with just Outlot B rather than platting it into separate lots
which would give you less control. I think we understand where staff is
coming with with pitched roofs. We would like at least the flexibility,
depending on the exact building sign when we come in. In some cases, maybe
an increased parapet another element would be satisfactory. I think one of
' our major concerns here and yours are architectural and screening the
rooftop units. We think we can accomplish that. One other thing that came
up is the seeding of Outlot B. I don't put grass where I don't irrigate
' because it doesn't grow. The only thing that grows is the weeds. We also
will probably be, we're not positive at this point because of title. Title
issues and ownership issues, we're not positive we can grade the Target
site and Outlot B at the same time. So that may cause some problems. I
think what we are comfortable with is where we've graded it, I think we can
take erosion precautions and we normally would throw down someting that
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 18
would prohibit growth until we brought in sod and irrigation. We have not
had good luck at all with seeding areas, hydro seeding. Doubling the seed
load. If we're not going•to irrigate, we don't seem to get grass. I thin
those are my only concerns with the staff report. I think otherwise we
think it was fairly, very well represented and we think we're on the same I
page. And I'd be glad to answer any questions if you've got any.
Batzli: Does anyone have any questions of the applicant before we open it
up to the public? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Due to the ,
probably number of comments and people commenting and offering their
testimony if you will today, I'd like to ask that you approach the
microphone and give your and address for the record. Try to be brief. If"
you can keep your comments to a couple of minutes, that would be much
appreciated. Would anyone like to address the Commission? Okay, I'll ask
for a motion to close the public hearing unless anyone would like to
address the Commission at this time.
Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Tim, I'm going to start at your end. '
Erhart: Well let's start out where Jeff left off there and maybe add some
good ideas. What's the use for that vehicle? That parking there north of
the building along West 78th. 1
Bill McHale: Employee parking.
Erhart: Oh, that's employee parking. Other than trees along West 78th, i1
there a berm there or anything else?
Aanenson: Right in here? '
Erhart: Yeah.
Aanenson: They're showing a...adding to the PUD zone because we think
these are the only two lots that are left between Market Square that are
unbuildable and it makes sense to tie those in architecturally in what
we're trying to do with the PUD zone. We're not sure that this connection.
is based on grades... We may recommend that it be more of a landscape
element up in here but there is a change in grade.
Erhart: What about along West 78th...row of trees and then it's flat
grass.
Fran Hagen: If I may make a comment. The building itself... ,
Batzli: I'm sorry, who are you for the record?
Fran Hagen: My name is Fran Hagen with RLK. What I was stating, do you
have a grading plan by chance? I don't know if you've had a chance to see
the site. It is falling away from West 78th Street quite, I think a total'
of 30 to almost 40 feet to the low point down where the pond will be
constructed. What we have is coming into the site, 2% and 5% grade until
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 19
we get to the front entrance of the building. We're proposing a grade at
the street connection in front of Target of 63.5. Elevation 963 and the
building will be set at 58 so that's about 5 1/2 feet lower there. But as
you progress further to the east, the east property line there, the
elevation of the roadway is about at 72 so that's about 12 feet.
Erhart: It slopes down toward the building?
' Fran Hagen: Right. There will be, there was I think a plaza area up there
wasn't there?
Aanenson: That's what we talked about if the connection didn't go between
this parcel. Between the two parcels. That there'd be a plaza.
Fran Hagen: I believe on the landscape though, even with that parcel we
were showing a retaining wall and a plaza area up in that corner.
Proposed, not necessarily. Up in the northeast corner of the site. As far
as berming, I guess that's what I heard you addressing.
Erhart: I was just wondering if.
Fran Hagen: It's pretty physically.
Erhart: Trying to understand what was there.
Fran Hagen: That's where we hope the tree massings and we do have quite a
bunch, what is it? 1 1/2 times the normal requirement. So we're trying
the best we can to mass some trees in there.
Erhart: It appears that you're doing more to the west of that with shurbs.
' Fran Hagen: Again, the grade difference over in there is much less because
by the time you come to the second entrance, you've dropped down 10 more
feet. That second entrance closer to, or further to the west is down at a
53 elevation. Proposed. In fact I think it's been graded. Rough graded
there if you were to see the site. It's intending to drop down to a low
point right around that westerly entrance to the Target site.
' Erhart: May I ask Chuck Dimler, we don't see his stand on here. Where
does that go when we're all done?
Aanenson: The corn stand?
Erhart: Yeah.
Fran Hagen: Probably right where the entrance is.
Aanenson: Talk to Todd.
1 Erhart: Okay, and what, nobody's objecting to the idea of adding the
Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. Is there a problem?
Aanenson: We haven't noticed that. We're saying when it comes back for a
preliminary, as we've gone through this, we realize those are the only two
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 20
lots and what we're recommending, when it comes back for a preliminary, we
noticed that and put that in as a part of the PUD.
Erhart: ...be done?
Krauss: There's a lot of, I mean this isn't the only action occurring on 1
this. There's a lot of negotiation between the city and the property
owners and the HRA so yeah, that should all be resolved by that time.
I
Erhart: Well, I guess it's obvious from everything that's been supplied,
somebody's put a lot of work into this already. Quite frankly, I was you
know, like everybody else, you don't want Chanhassen to change too much toll
fast and I'm kind of nervous about Target coming to our little Chanhassen
but after seeing the plan, I'm just a lot more comfortable with it.
Particularly pleased that we could save those trees next to TH 5 so it
isn't shocking when you, it doesn't end up looking like Eden Prairie Centel'
when you drive there on 212. Regarding the, let's see, at this point when
would we expect the entire area, including Lot 8 to be developed? Assumin
the economy doesn't get any worse.
Krauss: Well yeah, it's really hard to know. It's contingent upon market
conditions but I think in the very brief period of the last 2 or 3 years, II
you've seen the Chanhassen market just accelerate extraordinarily rapidly.
Having Market Square opening up in October is going to add to that. Having
Target, Target wanted to break ground this fall yet. I can't believe it's'
going to be too many years before Outlot B is built out.
Erhart: Your reaction to the statement about not sodding Outlot B.
Aanenson: That's erosion control. II
Hempel: I'm sure Watershed would have some concern over that also.
1
Erhart: Well yeah but yet we've left the Charlie James property sit over
there with weeds for how many years now? How do you differeniate our
position? How do you justify our position?
il
Hempel: Well our main concern is to control the erosion obviously and wha
we try to get is some fast growing cover. Not necessarily grass but we do
get a clover, an oat, rye, barley type growth. Just to mitigate erosion.
Erhart: Would we be doing something to the Charlie James property as well
Hempel: That's exactly it. It's left in i t's natural state and eventually
weeds do overcome it or prairie like atmosphere.
Erhart: Of course that's all going to be redone now. On the other hand,
do think people do plant grass and it does grow. The Highway Department is
proof of that.
1
Batzli: My front lawn isn't.
Erhart: Anyway again, I'm a lot more comfortable with it. Other than II
that, that's about the only comments I had.
s
1
Planning Commission Meeting
I August 19, 1992 - Page 21
Batzli: Tim, speak to us philosophically for just a second about, by
1 making this a PUD, what do we do with the areas around it? Does this
change anything about the lots directly behind it between the building and
the Monterey there and the property to the north? Do you see a problem
I with redoing this as a PUD?
Erhart: The last time we had this in here, I stated that I'd like to see
I us do something to bring the whole Monterey Drive into the plan. But at
that time, I thought the entrance was going to be to the north. Maybe
that's why, and this way, looking at it today and going out and looking at
the site, and actually the back of the building faces Monterey, I don't
I feel, I guess I didn't feel that that was a problem. Your question
regarding making this a PUD relative to the Monterey Drive area, I guess I
don't follow you.
I Batzli: Well this whole development. We're looking at this as a
conceptual deal. Do we want to rezone? Is this the kind of development
I we're going to want here? I guess I'm asking for your impression on what
do we end up doing on Monterey between this and the back of a huge
building? What do we do to the north? Do we want to realign the road that
way? We're doing a lot of things here conceptual rather than you know,
II what's the slope of the roof. I think.
Krauss: If I can touch on something you said Mr. Chairman. The alignment
I of the road is something that the City's been planning on doing for a large
number of years. That's not contingent upon Target or anybody else.
That's something that we need to do to have a safe intersection with 78th
Street and the boulevard. We also intend to carry 78th Street to the west
II as a, I forget what we're calling them now on the Highway 5 study. I see
some of my task force members here.
II Batzli: Frontage.
Krauss: Well sort of a parkway design and it's going to have an entrance
II into the park and continue on down. That road needs to be back far enough
from the TH 5 intersection to be safe and that's why we'd always planned to
do that.
1 Batzli: So you're comfortable?
Erhart: Assuming the area on Monterey would become, right now it's zoned
II what?
Aanenson: General business.
1 Erhart: Yeah, so now we have an industrial. Essentially an industrial
site there. I would assume that with Market Square and this being here,
any future development would be more likely retail or office, would it not?
I Krauss: Well there's no question that what occurs on the lots north of
Pica Drive would fit into the commercial /retail context of downtown. Early
II on, the Assistant City Manager's and was participating in some of these
discussions. We looked at the building down on Monterey. The industrial
building that's back in there and they adviseability about including that
'
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 22 '
and it's really innocuous. It's really concealed from most off site views
and it's going to become even more so as it would develop and there really
didn't seem to be any need from a design standpoint to incorporate it into
the project.
Erhart: Yeah, that was the other thing when I made that statement that
time was again I assumed that a lot of those trees would be, I thought all
would be gone and you'd essentially start with a clean sheet of paper on I
all parcels. Thankfully which is not going to be that way and you're
right, it's low and they're actually screened quite a bit by those trees.
Batzli: What do you think about tying this in? Does this, according to I
the plans as they stand, do they tie in with the rest of downtown so that
you get a feeling that this isn't isolating this and the adjacent retail t
the west from the remainder of downtown? Do you think they've done an
adequate job along the side of the building to West 78th to make it
pedestrian friendly or don't you care?
Erhart: Well again, I would hoped that the entrance would have faced West'
78th Street and I guess I always viewed it that way. Although I know, well
anyway. The way it's configured to the west, I guess it acts as a wall I
between the downtown and where everything here is going to be. In that
respect, that's where I was picking up on Jeff's idea there. The
importance of how this looks from West 78th Street along with the pitched
roof. I guess I'm not quite satisfied that we have an adequate appearance'
from West 78th. What we don't want to do is to have it look like the side
of Target like you do when you go to the Eden Prairie Center parking lot.
I'm not sure we're that much different than that from what I've seen so II
far.
Batzli: I don't know if we're different at all really.
Erhart: I hate to think that we're going to go down West 78th Street and
see a side of a building.
Batzli: Big side of a building.
Erhart: If your question is whether we want Target at all? Quite frankly'
Eden Prairie with the traffic's getting too far to go for diapers.
Batzli: I'm not asking that. I'm asking philosophically, you know have w
done the best job we can on that site to tie this into the downtown so it
makes sense to do it this way. Because we're, and this is the conceptual
approval stage. I mean do we kind of like what we see here? I'd rather
talk about whether they did a good job on the entrance treatment when we I
see the real plan. I don't want to say yeah, that's good tonight. I'd
like to see them work on it some more and I don't really want to say you
have to do this and you have to do that and we'll approve it. I don't I
think that's our function tonight. I'm looking more for some suggestions
or guidance on whether this fits in with what we want our downtown to look
like and whether this is something we'll be able to look at when it does
come in and not suddenly say, what have you done. Ladd, go ahead.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 19, 1992 - Page 23
1 Conrad: I'll make my comments fairly brief. It's good, I like Target
coming to town. They're . a great retailer. I think some nice things have
been done to date. I have some general directions that I feel real
convinced about. That we're not even close in terms of what the building
1 should look like on West 78th. Not even close. I would like to see, and 1
don't know how that. You know we have to go back to the architect to make
it kind of friendly. It's 330 some feet and I don't think we've tried yet.
1 I would like to see something that's kind of friendly to Chanhassen
residents on that side. I don't care if it's roofline or a grassy area. I
need something on the street itself. We've got a sidewalk there and I know
1 we have some vegetation plantings but it just seems real unfriendly. Real
cold and not what the rest of Chanhassen looks like right now. Other
comments, I don't know how big the parking lot is. It's hard for me to
tell but I'm sure we don't have a parking lot this big in Chanhassen yet.
1 Other directions. I'd sure like to see, it is kind of broken up with some,
it's kind of broken up. I guess my preference, and this is a costly
recommendation, but I'd sure like to see a grassy area that divides that
parking lot in two. Going from east to west. From the front door going to
the west property line and I don't know what I'm talking about literally
but I'm kind of concerned that it is a huge parking lot and visually from
1 the road, I'd like to break that up a little bit. And then my last
comment is, Outlot B. It just is hard for me to visualize it. It doesn't
seem to be a PUD type of drawing. I don't care if it's any one of the
three it doesn't, I'm not real comfortable with. It's building, parking
1 lot, building, parking lot and driveways going through and it just, I'm
kind of uncomfortable with that. Of all those comments that I've made, the
critical one is how we look on West 78th. There's just no doubt. In my
1 mind we're not even, Target hasn't tried yet.
Batzli: Steve.
Emmings: My comments are going to sound almost identical to Ladd's. I
wrote them down so I could repeat them. The 78th Street side of the
building was number one on my list. The parking lot is number two and
1 we've had some discussions here about parking lots being able to be
designed so they don't look like parking lots. We haven't gotten into that
in any real depth yet. I don't know what it means but I like the sound of
1 it and that's something I'm going to be looking at real hard. Outlot B,
the idea of that. It is hard to get an idea of what's going on. They're
even looking at three plans and I agree with Ladd, right now it doesn't
feel like it's integrated either with this project or even with itself.
' The idea that that could be all fast food restaurants would be abhorent to
me. I would prefer there be none but setting a maximum on it seems like a
real reasonable thing to do to me. I don't have any idea what the
1 implications are. All the truck traffic to the back of this building is
going down Monterey and then over on Pica Drive. I don't know what the
implications are for the lots that are there or for the roads that are
1 designed to handle that kind of truck traffic. But that must be a
significant amount of traffic with some pretty big vehicles. I don't know.
Is that something we've looked at or if it might be nothing to be concerned
about?
1 Krauss: Yeah, I don't think it really is a major concern. Monterey's been
accepting the truck traffic for the industrial building for quite a while.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 24 i
It's also the main access to the service area of Market Square. When the '
possibility arose of getting the service bays for Target back there where
it's really totally concealed from off site views, we frankly jumped at
that chance. I think it should work rather well.
Emmings: Okay. Well, that's good to hear so I guess it's the, I don't
mind the entrance. It would be nice to have the entrance on 78th Street
but I don't think it's terrible where it is. I think I can sure live wit
that. I don't think there's anyway we're ever going to think that this,
we're ever going to integrate this gully into the rest of Chanhassen just
because of the scale. It's so far off from anything else that we have,
there's just no hope of it feeling like it fits. I don't think. But that'
just means that a lot has to be done to that 78th Street side to do the
best we can. I think that's about all I've got. Right now anyway.
Batzli: Okay. Thanks Steve. Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm just going to make a few general comments. You were talkirl
about philosophy and I've always been confused by what Chanhassen is
philosophically. The city, because there really wasn't a city here, sort
of built up from the 70's and basically were primarily in the commercial
section here, the small strip mall. We sort of have evolved to a little
larger strip mall from there and we have the possibilities of bringing in
what is called some anchor to the retail section here to get people to
drive to Chanhassen, and I know a lot of people are a little nervous about'
that. I'm not really familiar with the marketing strategy behind Target
putting a store here. It seems to me that it does not follow typically
what they do in some of the surrounding areas here. Typically they
position a store adjacent to another large commercial development. I thin'
the nearest one here is Eden Prairie. Typically they don't have
residential across the street from there and typically they don't make up
half of the commercial area in a downtown. And so I think certainly, I
understand some of the concerns of the people who have voiced their concer
to me anyway about this, as to how that's going to change what they
perceive to be as Chanhassen. From what I see on the buildings here,
you're obviously trying to tackle that and I'm sure that the staff is
pursuing a PUD to try and achieve that and give the City some control over
this thing. I'm a little concerend about where these people are going to I
be coming into Chanhassen from. I know from what I've heard, at least
initially on this traffic report, is that it's not going to impact the city
but I can't help but believe that we're going to get a lot of people comin
in here from Minnetonka. Or the Minnetonka area which is going to mean T
or CR 17 or TH 41, to access this area••from the north. We certainly
don't have a lot of people to the south here. We have a lot of forest and
open farmland between here and Shakopee. But I'm sure possibly your
marketing reports tell you exactly where these people are, where you
believe these people are going to be coming from. And I'm a little
concerned that once that traffic gets here, as to how it's going to impac
some of these problems that we have had. The island situation and visual
clear sight lines coming in off of Market and looking down 78th. I'm not
traffic engineer but I know when I come out into those islands, it's hard
to see and I have to commit to going out into the street before I can
really see down the street to see what cars are coming up. And I'm
wondering until we work out some of those problems, I'm a little concerned
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 25
I about bringing in this much traffic into town. Again, that's a non-
professional opinion. I am concerned about the sight line from 78th Street
for some of the reasons that I brought up earlier. Residential across the
street. I think we have to be sensitive to integrating the commercial next
to the residential. It's going to overlook an awfully big parking lot
which brings me to another issue. I thought in the earlier drawings we
were going to try and minimize a very large expanse of impervious surface
' which we've already got locked up. We really don't have a main street. We
just sort of have a lot of parking lots and commercial areas off of what we
call main street. It certainly wouldn't hurt to try and work in a few more
trees into that parking lot. I know it may create a problem with the sight
lines for the entryway and probably not something that you're going to get
a dollar back on but I think it would go a long way to try and break that
impervious surface up and come in from the west. That brings me to my last
comments. The Outlot B, I'm a little worried as to what type of restaurant
and what type of developments would be going on there. My hope is that we
would try and balance out what type of development we're going to get
there. Hopefully Chanhassen, we're not going to wind up with the west
section of commercial being a discount area. Totally. And like an Arby's
and something like that there where we get a lot of back...plexiglass or
something of that nature. But all and all, I think that the architect in
this particular building, this is certainly a big improvement over Eden
Prairie. That's it.
1 Batzli: Joan.
Ahrens: I'm going to start with Outlot B. You're recommending that there
' be no more than two fast food restaurants in there but it looks like on the
plan that there are other restaurants that are expected to locate there or
are possible.
Aanenson: Correct.
Ahrens: What kind of restaurants do you think are going to locate next to,
' like Perkins?
Fran Hagen: An Applebee's... We don't know at this time but that's the
kind of things that could be in those... An Applebee's or Bakers Square.
Don't know for sure.
Farmakes: That's in addition to the fast food?
' Ahrens: Right. I can't tell by the plan either what this is ever going to
look like and I picture in my mind that this is going to look like one of
' those areas around Eden Prairie Center you know where the McDonald's is and
there's a little shopping center and you have to drive. There's lots of
parking lots and it's hard to get around and it's just kind of, like
somebody just dropped this commercial, little commercial area with lots of
a couple fast food restaurants and a couple of other restaurants and it
doesn't look, it's not a real welcoming place or real comfortable looking
place from either a retail standpoint. A restaurant standpoint... The
only thing I can think that this is going to look like by looking at the
plan.
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 26
Batzli: Are you thinking of the west end? 1
Ahrens: Kind of west. It's on that southwest corner of like 212 and
Prairie Center Drive. That area in there.
I
Batzli: Yeah. Kind of a jigsaw puzzle.
Ahrens: Yeah. Yeah. So I think there needs to be a lot of thinking on
what's going to go on in this area because I can't tell and it doesn't lo
good from what I can tell. I thought we talked about a long time ago
putting islands in the parking lot. The impervious surface for this
parking lot, impervious area is, almost 80% right. What happened to that I
idea? Or was I dreaming that up? I heard putting islands in and you know
making it, giving it a better appearance.
I
Aanenson: Like I say, we'll be looking at the site plan more specifically.
At this time we're really focusing on the zoning and the PUD itself. We
raised some of the issues we had. I'm pointing them in that direction but'
if that's the direction you want us to go with the.
Ahrens: I know you keep pointing us over here and we want to talk about II
these things over here.
Aanenson: No, I'm not saying, that's what we're asking for is direction.
If you want us to look at the landscaping, that's what we're asking you fo'
is direction.
Ahrens: Okay, I think we should look at that. And I don't see why we can'
incorporate or why Target can't incorporate some type of an island. I kno
it's not what they usually do. I know it's more difficult planning wise. I
know it will cause some maintenance, but who cares. The store itself, I II
don't know. To tell you the truth, the Chicago type store or the
Minneapolis type store, they all look pretty much alike to me. It's just
that there's a stripe here and there and maybe an entrance monument.
Batzli: I think she just committed architectural sacreligion. I'm not I
sure.
Ahrens: Well they're gray. Long gray buildings. That's why they put 1
trees up. We do have to, I would like to see some, there's got to be a lot
more effort into how this looks from 78th Street. I agree with Ladd. I'm I
not going to repeat everything and I wrote it down too but Steve already
restated everything that Ladd said. I like the PUD concept. I think it
has to be developed this way. I don't understand what would ever go in to
that lot that's located between the Target store and Monterey Drive. Is II
that retail? Is that what we envision or what?
Krauss: It would likely be retail or office that's already into 78th
Street, and frankly that's, it's a big element of tying the Target into thll
downtown streetscape because whatever's there is going to conceal the back
part of Target and kind of bring you around that corner which is now an 11
open corner.
Ahrens: But we would have control over what goes in there?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 27
1 Aanenson: That's why we're recommending the PUD for that piece too.
Ahrens: The store itself, it does need a lot more work. I mean I agree
with Ladd. I don't see a big improvement over anything we've seen in the
past. We want something different I guess. We just and I think we've said
that all along from the very first meeting at the fire station through
today. I mean we want something that's very different from what Target
' normally develops and I don't think it has to cost Target a lot more money.
It may cost them more money but they also want to be in our community and I
think that we have the right to tell them what we want too. On the
' landscape plan, the plantings that they're proposing to put in here are
pretty small types of trees and bushes which doesn't seem to me that it's
going to make a real big impact on how this building looks to people coming
into town and I think that needs to be redone and put some bigger trees on
the plan and something besides the crab trees and that type of thing. Are
all three of these exits going to be, are there going to be stop lights?
1 Aanenson: No.
Ahrens: Which one? I forgot.
Aanenson: This is where we're recommending it be right turn in, right turn
out only. This one will have a stop light at the entrance to the Target
store and this will be, it may or may not be signalized. It will be a full
1 intersection though.
Ahrens: I'd like to look at removing this parking lot too from the 78th
Street side of the building.
Margaret Fleck: Moving it this way?
1 Batzli: That's the employee parking?
Margaret Fleck: Oh this portion?
Ahrens: Yeah. That's all I have right now.
' Batzli: Thanks Joan.
Erhart: Brian?
11 Batzli: Yeah.
•
Erhart: Do you want more, I have some more issues here.
Batzli: Okay, let me run down a couple and we'll come back to you. I
think there's been a lot of good effort that's gone into this plan. A lot
of work. I think the applicant is working with staff. It sounds like
they're being sensitive to a lot of things that we like. I think the plan
needs refining. I think whatever we do along West 78th Street needs,
careful attention needs to be paid to that. The Outlot B, Kate help me out
11 here. Unless I miss something. Whatever happened to our Outlot B that was
sort of a food court? What happened to that?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 28
Aanenson: Well I think that their concern with the design and the views o'
Target and the spacing of the buildings. They've basically thrown that
plan out. That was one of the options that Barton- Aschman put together.
Fran Hagen: And the parking. ,
Batzli: Parking? '
Fran Hagen: The parking was insufficient...
Aanenson: They're trying to maximize the views from Powers and so they II
have the outlots spaced so you can see the front of the Target store.
Batzli: Because I think one fo the things we really liked about that plan'
probably unfortunately, given what I've just heard, was that we could do a
lot with the backs of those buildings we felt and put up some trees and do
some things where there wouldn't be a sight line at all from Powers into '
the front of the building. I guess in looking at these plans, I was
disappointed in Outlot B from the standpoint that it seemed like a maze or
a jigsaw puzzle to traverse within the retail stores in that section. It
didn't seem particularly, there didn't seem to be a logic to it then and II
I'm sure 1 have an untrained eye and there is a logic to it but it did,
when Joan brought up that part of Eden Prairie Center, by the west entrance
I think it is. I don't even go to those stores because of, it's just maze'
like in there. To me. I don't go in there. It's unfriendly. I don't
think that, the logic of how they have it arranged in any one of those
three could be explained to me but if what I hear is that the logic is tha
they can see the entrance to their store., that doesn't carry great weight
with me particularly because I don't want to see a poorly developed end to
Chanhassen so that somebody can get a glimpse of the Target store as they
zoom up Powers. There isn't going to be an entrance there. If people are
going to Target, they're going to know that Target is there. I don't quit
understand that. So I would like to see, at least rationale presented when
this does come back to us as to why it has to be arranged the way it does
or certainly Outlot B needs a lot of redesign in my opinion. Is there any
effect Paul, based on what we do tonight? Are we somehow limiting
ourselves to one of these three choices that they've presented for the
Outlot by us approving this tonight? Or giving this the okey dokey on the
conceptual stage.
Krauss: I don't think so Mr. Chairman. At this point, the level of desigil
concept that is used in looking at is limited because they haven't really
had an opportunity to explore it fully. We've raised a lot of the same
questions you have. We're convinced that under the PUD we can coordinate '
the development on this. I mean the worse case scenario from a visual
traffic standpoint is if we go with the additional lotting that's along
78th Street. You quite frankly have the potential of having 8 fast food
restaurants and a Goodyear store or something like that. Each having
separate driveways. Each loading onto 78th Street. Each looking
completely different and despite our best attempts, probably having a blue
building here and an orange building there and that kind of a thing. This
opportunity under the PUD is that we are going to coordinate the
architectural styles around it and frankly Bill Morrish's opinion on that
at that meeting was that unified building or individual buildings having all
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 29
' similar architectural theme, you can probably achieve most these same
goals. So we are certainly asking them to refine that more and we'll bring
back more definition but it's still an open question. They haven't really
' laid one concept on the table and this is it. So we've taken the proactive
step of saying okay, here's our concerns so when you do bring one back in,
here's the guidelines we're going to live by.
' Batzli: Well my concern stems from condition 4 which says the three
proposals for Outlot 8 may be acceptable. Is that saying to the applicant
that the Planning Commission and subsequently the Council is saying yes.
One of these three is fine as long as you go through proper channels to get
each building approved.
' Aanenson: No, we go back through the preliminary process, we want to see
those refined.
Batzli: Well I know but we're somehow giving guidance to the applicant
that we find one of these three, one of these three may be acceptable.
Aanenson: Right. What we don't know, and it's hard because of the mix of
11 use. They each have different parking standards so you really can't tie
that down too much because if it's fast food versus sitdown versus retail,
we have different parking standards. Basically we know there's only so
' much square footage and we've given you the range based on the different
versions. 25,000 to almost 30,000 square feet of additional buildings and
there can only be so much square footage on there. That parcel's only so
big. Yes, we agree that it needs to be refined. The maze look and some of
those sort of issues but there can only be so much useage of that and we're
saying, based on that, we feel that the comparable range, that much square
footage and it needs to be developed further.
Krauss: At the very least, you're going to have a concept that lays out
the internal road system there that defines the architectural theme that
they're going to have that mandates a signage package. That limits the
number of free standing pylon signs. Mandates a landscaping package. That
limits the more obnoxious uses that are potential on that. And also it
sets aside an appropriately sized piece of property. I think about a half
' acre for the HRA to work with developing entrance monumentations. We
envision there being a prominently designed landscape structural feature
similar to what we're looking at doing on Market and other entrances into
downtown. So there's a lot of framework to hang anything they come in with
in the future on.
Batzli: Okay, let me ask my question one more time. By us saying the
three proposals may be acceptable, not in terms of square footage or number
of buildings but just in terms of the layout that we see on our plans
today, does that mean that when we see this back as a plan, that we're
actually acting on, it's more than likely we're going to get one of these
three plans?
' Aanenson: I don't think so.
Krauss: I think you're going to see a refined version of one of them,
yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 30
Batzli: Because if it was up to me, I'd say the three proposals for Outlol
B are probably unacceptab.le and please redo them. I mean I'd rather say
that. I don't know that any of us is enamored with it. I know the
applicant hasn't come up here and spoken with us and explained the
rationale for why they're doing things a certain way and as you indicated,
they're still working on it themselves. But you know, I don't really want
to say that these plans may be acceptable knowing what I know right now.
So I'm just trying to discern whether we should be a little bit more
careful with this language.
Krauss: It's certainly appropriate to make these concerns known. The
major part of this process at this point is to give them direction to come!'
back in and resolve these issues.
Batzli: That's what I'm doing right now. Is the sight line study that yo,
passed out. or Target gave you today, have you had a chance to look at it?
And what does it say to you and why? In 2 minutes or less.
Aanenson: Can't figure it out.
Krauss: We really need some time to go through it with them. I mean this
is the kind of analysis we need to have done. When we opened it up, one
the pages didn't seem to jibe with what we recall the elevations to be.
Batzli: Generally. Sight lines from up on TH 5. Given the elevation of I
the building and your understanding of the elevation of the road, are they
doing a good job hiding the H back and the Satellite dish and whatever els
they've got on the roof?
Krauss: It appears that either, yeah. That it's going to achieve the
goal. What they're going to demonstrate to us here is the wall and does II
the wall need to be 2 feet higher to achieve it or that. But yes, you wil
not be looking down on a maze of pipes and air conditioners as has often
happened in the corridor.
Batzli: And I know that you said to Steve that there's not a concern abou
the truck traffic going back on Monterey to the loading dock area. Is the
outlot where the trees will be located, is that ever going to be some sort,
of, or is that going to be just kind of a nature area? Is the City going
to have title to that?
Krauss: The City would acquire title to that, yes. '
Batzli: That will not be maintained as a park or otherwise as an
enticement to small children or anything else?
Krauss: No. The idea is to preserve the trees in perpetuity.
Batzli: And where do we envision the truck traffic coming into this area II
from?
Krauss: Maybe that's a question we can refer to our traffic consultants II
who are here tonight. There were several questions that were raised
regarding approaches to the site. Not only from commercial traffic but
' Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 31
' also from customer traffic. There has been a lot of study done on the
downtown street system. The questions that Commissioner Farmakes is
raising about the downtown street system are frankly, I mean we've got the
' design solutions for all of them and it was going to have been under
construction this fall but after we started working with Target, we put off
the project a little bit to make sure that we'd accommodate those concerns.
' But I'd like to have Tim Feeno from Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, who is the City's
traffic consultant possibly address some of those questions on approach
directions. Jeff Bedenaur from Strgar- Roscoe is also here tonight.
1 Batzli: Okay, why don't they do that real briefly.
Tim Feeno: Jeff Bedenaur is our...specialist and he did most of the
traffic analysis that was done earlier on and I'll let him try...
Jeff Bedenaur: Based on the region location of Chanhassen and the site in
' particular, most of the truck traffic that we anticipate will be trying to
ingress or egress the site would be coming from the east on TH 5. Both for
the commercial /retail /wholesale outlets.
' Batzli: Excuse me just one moment. Can everyone hear or maybe you can go
to the microphone to make sure.
Jeff Bedenaur: Based on our previous traffic study for downtown
Chanhassen, the major direction of approach, because of the regional
location of Chanhassen and the site in particular, is going to be from the
east on TH 5. There's also a great number of trips who will come south on
' TH 101 and enter the downtown Chanhassen area from the east but they would
be clients and patrons of the retail and commercial uses that are being
proposed here. The truck traffic primarily would be coming in on TH 5 and
' I would expect that there will be a desire for most of the truckers to come
in probably at Market, once they know the site and how to get in and out,
they'll probably come off TH 5 at Market. Come up to West 78th and then
' travel west to Monterey and into the site from that direction. There might
be some who continue on TH 5 to Powers and come around but it's kind of a
reverse movement and I wouldn't expect there'd be a great deal of that.
Batzli: Wouldn't they be making a left hand turn across traffic with
islands right there for the stop light?
1 Jeff Bedenaur: Right. There would be a traffic signal at the intersection
of Market and West 78th that would facilitate that turn for them. We
anticipate that over time West 78th Street will convert from a 2 lane
divided section to a 4 lane divided section as far east as Laredo and
1 possibly Great Plains.
Batzli: Do truckers like making left hand turns as opposed to right hand
turns because they're going to be making several left hand turns if they
come in the way they propose on Market?
' Jeff Bedenaur: Right. Well as I indicated, they'll have a traffic signal
at Market to facilitate that left. And then the left at Monterey shouldn't
be that difficult depending on the time of the day they make that turn.
Typically I'm sure that there are trucks that are going to coming in and
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 32
out at all time of the day but I would expect it would be during the off II
peak periods that most of the truck traffic would be entering the site.
Batzli: Is that true? That people from Target, is anybody here from
Target, is that when the trucks normally enter?
Bill McHale: They try not to mix truck traffic with their... ,
Jeff Bedenaur: And as Paul had indicated, that ultimately there would be
also a traffic signal at Monterey and Kerber to help facilitate that left
turn as well.
1
Farmakes: Excuse me for a minute. Are your traffic comments directly
related to the Target or retail in general in Chanhassen?
Jeff Bedenaur: The direction of approach percentages, and if I can find
them I can detail those percentages, are to the downtown in general.
Farmakes: So the access that you're talking about when you're talking
about accessing into town off of TH 5 from the east, is retail in general
and not directed specifically to Target? ,
Jeff Bedenaur: That's correct. We anticipate that 30% of the traffic into
and out of downtown Chanhassen would be coming into or leaving on TH 5 to
the east. 25% would be coming in or going out to the north on TH 101. 10�
would be coming into downtown or going out of downtown to the north on
Powers. 15% would be coming into or going out of the downtown area on TH 5
to the west. And additionally, 10% would be coming in from the south on II
TH 101. That's the generalized directional distribution that we used in
our downtown traffic forecast. The truck traffic in particular would be
much heavier on TH 5 to the east. ,
Farmakes: Doesn't discount retail have a broader draw than normal retail
though?
Jeff Bedenaur: ...didn't have an opportunity to look at a great many or a
large spectrum of directional distributions based on the land use that we
were looking at for the downtown Chanhassen forecasting work. This is a II
generalized distribution and it's one that represents a mix of types of
land use. Office, retail, commercial, entertainment and so forth so it's a
real mix. It's a real generalization.
Farmakes: As I said in my comments earlier what worries me though is tha
I believe the nearest Target to the north is Ridgedale. Is that correct?
Jeff Bedenaur: That's right.
Farmakes: Okay, and then to the east is Eden Prairie, correct? And we II
have comparatively to our size, Minnetonka is 60 how many thousand is
Minnetonka?
Krauss: About 50- 52,000. ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 19, 1992 - Page 33
I Farmakes: Okay. And they're directly to our north. They're a much larger
population base than we are and on the far north corner of that is a retail
market. I would assume that a lot of density along TH 7 will consider
I making the trip to Chanhassen from the north.
Jeff Bedenaur: That's right and that's one of the reasons we have 25% of
the traffic coming into the downtown area on TH 101 and 30% coming into the
I downtown area on TH 5.
Farmakes: But I know a lot of people also would cut across because of the
I limited amount of retail directly to the north. The communities of
Shorewood, Excelsior, Mound, all over to the west because there is a
limited amount of retail shopping there. How much traffic do you envision
on Powers or even TH 41 or Galpin Road?
I Jeff Bedenaur: Well we have estimated that there'd be about 10% of the
total traffic to the downtown area would come in from the north on Powers.
I I'm not sure what the land use densities or intensities are for those areas
along Powers north of Chanhassen but we felt that based on the regional
model that we used to help us develop these directional distributions, that
I that was reasonable.
Batzli: What percent did you have leaving the site going north on TH 101?
I Jeff Bedenaur: 25 %.
Batzli: Is there going to be a traffic light at the intersection at the
I bend of West 78th where it turns into Great Plains and continues straight?
Is there going to be a stop light there?
I Jeff Bedenaur: That will probably be the first traffic light that will go
in on West 78th Street.
Farmakes: Is there an existing market study that Target has in regards to
I where you think your customers are coming from?
Margaret Fleck: I'm sure there is one...
II Farmakes: Have you seen anything to that or where they think the customer
base is or where they're drawing from?
' Krauss: No. I have no idea.
Batzli: Thank you.
1 Jeff Bedenaur: You bet, thanks.
I Batzli: Dave. You had I think a fairly lengthy memo as to things that
should be looked at. Do you feel comfortable with the resources that this
building is going to take as far as water and sewer and what have you in
terms of city? In terms of runoff into the drainage areas. Are you
II comfortable with the way this is going?
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
I August 19, 1992 - Page 34
Hempel: To be honest Mr. Chairman, Charles Folch the City Engineer was th'
one who actually reviewed this one and based on his memo to the Planning
Department on it, I believe he does feel confident that we do have enough
infrastructure to accommodate the site and the proposed use. Storm
drainage calculations of course were preliminary he looked at and there is'
an existing storm sewer line that could accommodate part of the site
drainage already. On top of that, the required on site retention pond
1 would handle the remaining runoff.
Batzli: Do we know Paul if a building like this is going to require any
additional fire equipment or things like that?
1
Krauss: No we don't and we don't actually do a calculation of that. In
terms of scale, if it puts it into perspective at all, this building is
approximately 10,000 square feet larger than Market Square. And in terms I
of what you're going to see ultimately in downtown, it's really kind of
hard to project that far forward. But on the north of this site we have
the Charlie James' piece which is equally able to accommodate significant
retail and which is appropriately zoned so in terms of what percentage thi
will be of the total development in downtown, I did a guesstimate the other
day and probably about a fifth of the total. The ultimate.
I
Batzli: That's all I had. Tim, did you have something else?
Erhart: Yeah, a couple of things. The size of the Target in Eden Prairie'
Bill McHale: It's about the same.
Erhart: About the same. And does the parking lot meet the new standards 1
that we put in in our PUD? In terms of the islands and things. We wrote
into the PUD standards. If it falls into that. I mean it's regulated by I
the new PUD.
Krauss: It's under the new PUD ordinance but it doesn't have specific. I
mean there's density. Hard surface coverage requirements.
Erhart: There's requirements in there for trees?
Krauss: No. Well our parking ordinance does require a certain amount of II
parking lot landscaping. It always has.
Erhart: Maybe that's the one I'm referring to. Does it meet this one ?...'
Aanenson: Yes, it does.
Erhart: Okay, and then what, we were going to use pots to put these trees'
in? Is that what I read in there?
Aanenson: The ones in the front along the building? II
Erhart: No, the ones in the parking lot. The islands are planted in the II
ground, not in the pots correct?
Aanenson: Right.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 19, 1992 - Page 35
' Erhart: What is the, in the CBD in this area if on a standard development,
what would be the impervious coverage allowed? And this is 70 %. What are
we looking at here?
' Aanenson: Well the average we gave you in the report, it talks about 60
something.
1 Emmings: 68 and 67.
Erhart: Including Outlot B?
' Aanenson: Yes. We didn't include this or we took out the tree
preservation area and we took out the area for the monument too. We didn't
' count those as part of it.
Emmings: If you just look at the Target site itself, it's real high.
' Aanenson: Right. But we did let them count the trees and it's close to
80.
' Krauss: But again, this is a very conservative projection. I mean if you
draw the line around the entirety of the PUD, the average lot coverage
comes out quite a bit lower.
' Erhart: Yeah but I'm talking about just the Target site is well above 70%.
Regarding that West 78th side here I'm still, it kind of, I wonder when you
take the most valuable street we have in town in terms of facing in terms
' of retail, is that we would put a side of a building there. I wonder if
you couldn't look at it in terms of reconfigure the building to make it
more east /west and move the entrance to the corner so the entrance would
' face both north and west and then making the employee parking lot part of
the parking lot. That would reduce the size of the west parking lot and
break it up. Or why can't you have two entrances? Both an north and a
west entrance. Maybe you've looked at all of this.
Krauss: Well I'd let Target answer why they have to have one entrance.
That's an internal configuration but when we were trying to lay out the
site configurations here, we're not dealing with a site that's terribly
deep. The deepest spot is where the Target building is proposed right now.
When we knock out the area we want to preserve for the tree preservation
area, there's a limited footprint left. You don't have enough, I mean
people will only walk several hundred feet from their cars to a front door
of a store. And if the entrances veered tb the north side, the
perponderance of the parking is moved away.
1 Erhart: But they're there now.
Krauss: It's not that, it's toward the north end of the building but it's
still fairly centrally located.
Batzli: And that would be like going to the Knox store in Hopkins. I mean
you talk about a weird entrance.
Erhart: Is that the entrance on that drawing? Is it on the north end?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 36
Bill McHale: Just about centrally located towards the parking lot. The II
parking lot veers north towards...
Erhart: Well, I won't spend any more time on it but it's just that there,
seems to be, there's something that can be done to make that north side
better and I think we've all said that and we're just trying to. I'm not
the guy that ought to be trying to solve it for you but it seems to me
1 there ought to be something more sensible.
Krauss: Oh I think there's a lot. There's a lot of things that can be
done there. ,
Batzli: The only other comment that I'd have is, I would like to at least
see a discussion when we take a look at this, if the City Council approve
it and we proceed, some sort of discussion about a sidewalk or something.
Maybe not just along West 78th but to the other retail areas. If there
will be any movement back and forth, if you park your car once and walk
from Target over to the other retail centers, I would prefer to see some II
sort of sidewalk treatment there. Is there anymore?
Farmakes: I don't think we talked at all about lighting at all and I don"
know if technically we need to get into that but I know it's been a
discussion of some of the other things that we've talked about. The intent
of trying to minimize the indirect light that escapes. I know there's a
lot of indirect lighting for a commercial development. Where you get a
concentration of cars and street lights so is that, the lighting was kind
of, weren't really addressed. Are we doing everything we can with the
lighting to make sure that we minimize that impact? Because basically
there's a fair amount of single family homes just to the north of here an
our park is to the northwest.
Krauss: City ordinance requires that light spillage be limited to a
maximum half a foot candle at the property line. Which is fairly tight.
And they're going to have to demonstrate to us that it achieves that. No
more than that, we get into, when we get to that level of design, what do
the fixtures look like? They're all downward oriented fixtures and
arguably you can even get into what kind of fixtures should they be. That
all comes out during the site plan aspect of it. We just want to make the'
aware that there is a concern with that and they'll have to deal with it.
Batzli: Is there a motion? Oh, yes sir. ,
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: My name is B.C. "Jim "'Burdick from Excelsior. I...
negotiated out this arrangement to sell this to the city and then to Ryan
Construction. And first of all, I appreciate your concern about those twc�
lots on Monterey. I've own those for a number of years and am very
concerned about their position relative to this. Now in negotiations with
Target, at one time that building was going to be katty corner and faced I
northwest. Another time it was going to be a bit farther south. And I
gave on these points but it's very essential for us that there be a drive
from the Target parking lot into the two lots we have between Target and 11
Monterey. There's a racetrack style circle up there to identify them in
the northeast corner and I negotiated this with Ryan and Target. Having
this drive through there and I just wanted to bring up that this is very
II
Planning Commission Meeting
II August 19, 1992 - Page 37
essential and important to us. And of course I do appreciate the concern
I that every one of you has shown about these two lots on Monterey...what's
going to happen to them. And I would like to bring up one other thing for
your consideration and that is about moving the Target building a bit
II farther south and partly into this area of trees. I don't like to see
those trees, anything happen to them either but they're oak trees. The
larger ones are very old. Almost any development, the oak trees die.
I There's no more sensitive tree than an oak tree. You can drive on maples
and many other trees. Elm, if they don't get a disease and even around
birch, more than you can around oak. So intentions are good on saving
those oak trees but believe me, it's a job to save an oak tree if you've
I ever built a house near one. If you've got a house 50 -100 feet from an oak
tree and those will die. Not only 9 times out of 10 but probably 98 out of
100. So if you'd consider moving Target a bit to the south, it would most
I certainly help us develop those two lots and I think be more attractive
taking the picture as a whole because as things now stand, we'll be so to
speak behind the Target building. I believe that's all I have unless you
have some questions.
II Batzli: Thank you very much.
I B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Thank you.
Batzli: Is there a motion?
I Conrad: I'm not sure what the motion is intended to do. There's a lot of
detail. I guess I'm kind of uncomfortable with what's here. There's some
details in here that I didn't know were part of the conceptual review.
I Basically this is our time to tell the applicant what we think and kind of
give some direction. So I'm not sure what this, there are details in here
that gee, I would have to reword the whole motion to tell you the truth.
I But maybe staff is looking for us to somehow come up with some consensus or
Paul, what are you looking for? Are you looking for, you know you're going
to go through the same steps with City Council so the applicant can hear
their concerns and provide the applicant with their direction. What's the
I
point of the motion?
Krauss: Well, to the extent that we haven't articulated your concerns or
I if you think we've misstated something. It would be appropriate to throw
some language in saying that you have these additional concerns of da da da
da da and we'll carry those forward to the City Council and the developer
I will go back and start working on it. You know of course conceptual
approval is by nature of the beast non - binding on all parties so you can
have some latitude to say your piece.
II Batzli: You would prefer to see a motion which includes your points plus
any additional concerns which we have?
II Krauss: I think so, yeah.
Aanenson: If we could do like we did on the Oaks. We just said based on
I all the input. Just pass that report on and what we did is we took the
Minutes and summarized those and made a laundry list of concerns and passed
those onto the Council.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 38 1
Batzli: You're uncomfortable with that?
Conrad: No, going not at all. I'm not oin to make a motion. Because there's
just a lot of debate in my mind on some of these things. I don't know if
there's.
1
Erhart: What happens if we want them to come back with something, just to
come back with three treatments of the West 78th Street. What would
I
happen?
Conrad: That's the point of why we're doing this.
I
Erhart: Well I'm not sure we're ready to make a motion. We don't want to
have it come back and look at it differently. I haven't seen any motions
yet. I thought I heard a universal feeling from the Commissioners that tli
West 78th side is not acceptable. That's what I heard.
Krauss: Right.
II
Erhart: So what's the point in a motion?
Aanenson: You tell them to do that.
II
Krauss: Yeah, 1 mean you refer the item on.
Erhart: Refer it onto Council? II
Emmings: My feeling about what we're doing here is we're saying, yeah.
think this whole area ought to be a PUD. We're not opposed to something
along the lines of what's being proposed for the Target store in any way
and I think that's about it. And then there's a bunch of particulars
including some more reasonable or some better design of the West 78th
Street side but they've heard all that. But I think the main thing is th
we're in tune with developing the site as a PUD.
Erhart: Okay, so we wouldn't be surprised if it came back then after 1
tonight with a building that was reshaped? We aren't locking in on this
shape?
II
Emmings: I don't think we've locked into any particular details have we?
It's a general concept.
JI Krauss: Yeah, I think you should not expect, I mean unless you're statin
something specific, you shouldn't expect radical deviations. A U shaped
building would be pretty radical.
1
Erhart: That's what I would have gone for because I think the building
shape isn't right to optimize the use of the property. The use of the
property and to solve a problem.
II
Batzli: I think a lot of effort has gone into that particular point to
date. Looking at all the conceptual things they've done and given the
slope of the lot, I wouldn't expect that they would come back with a II
reconfigured shape of the building at this point.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 39
Emmings: Ladd's point is well taken. Why these conditions and we say
11 we're doing kind of a conceptual approval and yet we're making these very
specific recommendations here and really could make a lot more.
I Krauss: Kate and I had this discussion while we were writing this thing.
Should we be more specific or less? We came down in the middle.
I Aanenson: I don't know if that's true Paul.
Batzli: You came down on Paul's side.
I Aanenson: I said we should put as many conditions in here but, we had the
same concern with Oaks. Remember the residents got up and we spoke and a
lot of time and you're going to see a different design. They've taken in.
I We forwarded it on, like I said, we made a laundry list of all the
concerns. The residents concerns and I think you're going to see a
redesign. As you stated, I don't think Target's going to be completely
reconfigured. I think we'll see the outlot reconfigured but if you want to
I
throw this list out, I'm comfortable with that.
Emmings: I think what we did on that one was we said, with all of the
I conditions in the staff report plus all of the concerns raised by everyone
who spoke, either from the public or on the Commission.
U Ahrens: I don't get the feeling we want to do that with this one. For
instance, what Brian brought up earlier about the three proposals for
Outlot B. I don't think any of us are sold on those...and see one of those
come back to us.
I Batzli: Well I might like one of them if it was properly explained too.
I mean I tried to say that but.
1 Ahrens: Right but are we limiting ourselves?
I Emmings: You can change may to may or may not.
Ahrens: Well that makes it meaningful.
I Emmings: Yeah, I think it does. I think if you want to avoid being
trapped into them saying hey, you led us to believe that one of these would
be, you haven't done that. They can't say that. That's the only thing
I that helps. The point of that being is that regardless of what they do
there, each building's going to have to come through a site plan review.
I Batzli: I personally would be comfortable with the motion that talked in
terms of we need work in these areas. The conditions set forth in the
staff report and then I would hit the highlights of what we discussed
tonight. I don't think it's necessarily fair to the developer to say, plus
II everything that was said. Well, go for it then. Do you want to make a
motion Jeff?
II Farmakes: With all these lawyers here?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 40
Erhart: Okay, let's list the issues and then one of us will make the
motion. One is the north, West 78th Street view.
Emmings: Parking lot.
Erhart: Parking lot, two. What else?
Aanenson: Design of Outlot B.
1
Farmakes: Particularly in relationship to the park.
Erhart: Anything else?
Conrad: Jeff's concern was traffic.
Ahrens: I think we should say the size and type of landscaping as it
relates to the parking lot on West 78th Street and wherever else people
have a concern.
1
Farmakes: 78th Street view, do you have?
Aanenson: Internal access into the walking?
1
Farmakes: And it would be interesting to know that 20% that they're
talking about from TH 101, it'd be interesting to know how that relates to'
our Target...customers.
Erhart: Okay, going once. I'll move that the Planning Commission.
Emmings: Okay, one other thing. On Outlot B, no one else really commented
on what they felt like with regard to fast food restaurants.
Ahrens: The number or?
Emmings: Yeah. • II
Ahrens: Well I'd like to see none.
Emmings: Yeah, so would I. '
Erhart: I would agree. Without getting into it but the thing, I agree
with Brian entirely is the place at Eden Prairie, it's awesome and I avoid
it like the plague because you don't know what's in there and even if you
see the building in there, you can't figure out visually how you get to it.
You don't go in at all. '
Ahrens: I went in once and it was a big mistake.
Erhart: It's goofy. On the other hand, I didn't comment on it tonight II
because I somehow I feel we could spend another hour on that and you know
when we actually saw reality, it wouldn't be anything like we thought
tonight anyway so I kind of feel it's a waste of time. But I think the
comments are good for whoever develops that area is that Eden Prairie area
where they have the fast food restaurants in there is just goofy. It's got
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 41
to hurt the potential business for the people there. Anything else Steve?
'
•
Emmings: No.
Erhart: Well let me take a shot here. I'll move that the Planning
Commission recommend the conceptual approval of PUD #92 -5 as shown on the
plans dated August 7, 1992 with the conditions set forth in the staff
report, 1 thru 11 with additional. And that the Planning Commission
expressed additional concerns that we'd like to have staff review further
the subjects of the view of the building from West 78th Street. The view
of the site from West 78th Street. The parking lot. What it's view from
' all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping,
particularly as it relates to the West 78th Street and in the parking lot.
Four, the design of Outlot B. Specific concerns so that it's useful and
friendly. And five, the pedestrian. Whether or not they expect to have
any pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those
buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that pedestrians
might use such as the bus depot and so forth or whatever. And item number
1 6, concerns with look further into concerns of traffic.
Batzli: Is there a second?
1 Emmings: I'll second it.
Conrad: So what does that position us in in the staff's 11 points? It
means we all endorse bringing the Burdick parcel in. Endorse a 6 foot
sidewalk. That's what bothers me. That's too detailed but anyway, I just
don't like that. I think that's not a big deal though.
1 Erhart: Your concern is with the 11 issues are too specific?
Conrad: They're very detailed. I don't want to tell the developer exactly
what to do. I want to give them our feelings and it's his duty to work
with staff to see if they can resolve them. But I don't want to delete or
change your motion Tim, that's fine.
Erhart: Good, because I'm not planning on it.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of PUD #92 -5 as shown on the plans dated August 7, 1992, subject
to the following conditions:
1 1. Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots Land 2 be added to the PUD at the
time of preliminary PUD.
' 2. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff
report and Engineer's memo.
' 3. The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn -in
and right turn -out only, full access be limited to the other two
locations shown on the site plan.
1 4. The three proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable but each building
must proceed through site plan review. This site plan review shall
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 42
consider the remainder of the balance of the site. This includes
landscaping impervious surface, parking, etc.. Any major changes woul
constitute a rezoning.
5. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. 1
6. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees.
7. Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard.
8. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development.
Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and landscaping.
9. Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target I
shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched
roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West
78th side of Target.
10. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm
sewer, water and sanitary sewer.
11. Uses are limited to those outlined in the report including the 1
limitation of two fast food restaurants.
Further that staff review the following subjects: 1
1. The view of the site from West 78th Street.
2. The parking lot.
3. The view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and
type of landscaping, particularly as it relates to the West 78th Stre
in the parking lot.
4. The design of Outlot B. Specific concerns so that it's useful and
friendly.
5. Addressing pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to II
buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that
pedestrians might use such as the bus depot and so forth.
6. Look further into concerns of traffic. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.