1a. Final Plat Market Square i ill CITY O -----
ii__ 111 CHANHASSEN
1
1 N„, '.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I `' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
IMEMORANDUM � 1�
Don Ashworth, City ManagerITO:
� Do Su�� to ;- .s�x6
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner (J�-
DATE: July 19, 1990 t_~~
I pyta $�yrni,h to °�'T
7 F_')- ya
SUBJ: Final Plat for Market Square
1 On November 20, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary
plat for Market Square with the following conditions:
1 1. Outlot A shall not be developed until it is replatted.
2 . The final plat shall reflect the utility and drainage
I easements for existing and proposed city sewer and water lines
over the site.
3 . The preliminary plat shall be amended to provide the
Ifollowing:
a. Show the 40 foot wide right-of-way along the south half
Iof West 78th Street.
b. A 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be
I dedicated over the south 30 feet of the east 360 feet of
Lot 1, Block 1.
c. A 10 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be
Idedicated around the perimeter of the plat.
d. The preliminary plat shall be amended to show additional
I right-of-way on Market Boulevard to accommodate the city
sidewalk and a bus turn-off as approved by the City and
Southwest Metro Transit Administrator.
Ie. A trail easement shall be provided accommodating the
trail/sidewalk along West 78th Street.
If. Cross access/parking and utility easements over all
parcels in favor of all parcels.
1 4 . The landscaping plan shall be revised to accommodate
I
11
Market Square Final Plat
July 19, 1990
' Page 2
additional right-of-way and the bus shelter on Market
' Boulevard.
5. Final plat subject to all conditions of PUD approval.
' The applicant has provided the final plat for City Council
approval. The final plat provides for all of the conditions of
preliminary plat approval, except that it must still be amended to
' reflect a 20 foot utility easement for the proposed City water line
over the southerly portion of the site. The applicant must still
enter into a development contract and a PUD contract with the City
prior to the plat being filed with the County. The PUD was
approved with several amendments required to the site plan. An
amended site plan must be submitted to the City with the required
amendments prior to any building permits being issued by the City.
' RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the City Council to adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the final plat #89-2 PUD for Market
Square with the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall reflect a 20 foot utility easement for
the proposed City water line over the southerly portion of the
' site.
2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
provide the necessary security.
3 . The applicant shall enter into a PUD contract with the City. "
' ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated November 20, 1989.
' 2 . Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 18, 1990.
3 . Final plat.
1
t
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 �.
IL
Don Ashworth: We would be ready to put it onto a City Council agenda within a
short period of time. What I'm hearing the Council say is that they'd like to
see staff potentially meet again with that group of owners before the thing
comes back to City Council? Again, if I'm hearing you correctly, we've been
told by the owners of Lots 3, 4 and 5 that they will fight condemnation. The
City Attorney has advised that Ostrom was responsible to obtain those easements.
Record them and the City does have the ability to go back and seek, to obtain
the easements and then to bill Mr. Ostrom for that. A question is really
whether or not we're going to be reimbursed for that. What I'd like to be able
to do is to prepare a report, I guess I'd like to be able to meet again with the
owners out there. Explain that there is a strong possibility that the City
would start that condemnation process and then to put the item onto a future
agenda for a decision. So I guess we'd start our informally. That should be
able to be accomplished within a 2 week period of time. Then to take and have
it back potentially to City Council within 2 weeks after that.
Mayor Chmiel: I would hope that there would be sort of a friendly acquisition
rather than condemnation.
Don Ashworth: I don't think that would be possible. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat the motion please?
Wayne Fransdal: If I could make one final content. That the review of the
access for this trailway and the neighborhood input, that the neighborhood be
defined more than the 6 or 8 lots on the Ostrom development. There are other
neighbors that are equally as concerned and involved. '
Councilman Boyt: I believe the motion is to approve the sale of the property
with the noted conditions. I would be open to also adding to the motion that
the $30,000.00, since that's what it is, $30,000.00 received from the sale be
expended on the property per the City Engineer's recommendation previously and
that any surplus be held until the issue of the second trail access is resolved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second. '
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dinner seconded to approve the sale of a
portion of the property at the Murray Hill Water Tower site to Gil Mr. Gil
Kreidberg with the condition of making such a part of his existing lot and that
the $30,000.00 received from the sale be expended on the property per the City
Engineer's recommendation previously and any surplus be held until the issue of
the -second trail access is resolved. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET
AND MARKET BOULEVARD:
A. PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 78TH STREET. ,
Paul Krauss: If I can address the vacation of 78th Street. It was my
understanding that we were going to do the vacation of 78th Street in '
25
11
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
conjunction with the plat that we were of to with this
9 � process project.
While we have all the information we need to process the PUD, the platting
I documents were unfortunately delayed so that we don't know exactly how much of
the street we'd like to vacate at this time. We've asked that you continue
action on the plat and would also ask that you continue action on the vacation
Ito be handled at the same time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want us to table the segment for the public hearing
vacation of West 78th at this particular time?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
IIMayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion?
I Councilwoman Dirtier moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table the public hearing
for vacation of a portion of West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
IIB. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER.
I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The applicants are
requesting approval of a PUD to construct a 94,000 square foot shopping center
that would be anchored by a Super Value supermarket. It would also create a two
IIacre outlot called Outlot A that would be located within the PUD and would be
available for development in the future, although we don't have any concept for
that right now. The Council last reviewed this project on September 11th when •
it received PUD concept review. Based on convents received at that stage, the
I project was modified and then returned to the Planning Commission for
development stage approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the develogtent
stage plan on September 20th. Staff had recommended approval to the Commission
Isubject to a lengthy list of stipulations. The most significant of which dealt
with future development oh Outlot A. Restrictions on how that parcel might
develop in other words. Access issues in general and a variety of site plan
IIimprovements. The Planning Commission generally agreed with staff's position
but indicated concerns with the project's appearance from 78th Street. They
recommended approval of the PUD with additional conditions. ...since that
meeting the applicant has worked with staff to resolve the issues that were
' raised and to reduce the number of conditions that are attached to this
proposal. The most noteable revisions are to the northern end of the POD and
this was to respond to issues that were raised by the Planning Commission. The
vet clinic has been relocated from a central part of the site along West 78th
Street to the northwest corner of the property and the size of the shopping
center building itself has been decreased and a second free standing structure
II which would house a dry cleaners is proposed along West 78th Street. Along
with architectural refinement, it's hoped that this gives more of a feel for
this CBD type of development you experience to the east on 78th Street. Those
building are oriented to the street. They're finished on all four sides and the
Ishopping center itself is now finished on 3 sides at the north end where it
would house a restaurant. During the process of this refinement, the gross
building square footage has been decreased slightly for the shopping center but
at the same time the size of the initial Super Market development has been
increased up to 20,000 square feet.
' 26
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 1
11
Mayor Chmiiel: Can you clarify that difference that you just said? It was
decreased on the shopping center? How many square foot is that going to be?
i
Paul Krauss: Originally it was 99,416 square feet. It is not 94,158 so
approximately 5,000 square feet smaller and that includes the two out buildings.
There's also a number of other modifications that were included in the plan
basically to resolve issues that had been raised by staff and the Planning
Commission. We believe that the modifications will respond well to the issues
that were raised and that the current proposal represents a high quality
project. Staff is recommending that the PUD plan be approved subject to
appropriate conditions. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is the developer here? 1
Jim Winkles: Good evening. My name is Jim Winkles and I'm part of the
development team regarding this project. With me tonight also are a couple
representatives from Amcon who are the designers of the project and we'll
actually ask Bill Brisley to come up and kind of go through, walk you through
the project very quickly. In short, before Bill comes up, I think what I'd like
to just add to what Paul was talking about is in fact what we have been trying
to do in the last few months. We actually suh pitted these plans for the first
time for the Planning Commission and staff review this last summer. Actually
in July and have been working steadily with them and with the City's consultants
to make some refinements in terms of access, parking, architectural design,
detailing of the building, the lighting, signing, just about everything that you
would imagine on a project like this we have reviewed. In fact have spent the '
last couple of months just refining those and making changes that we believe now
has more or less I think incorporated everything that we've heard from everybody •.
along this route. We've been the HRA. We've been to the Planning Commission on
a concept basis. We've been to the Council on a concept basis and then took
everything through on a formal basis so we start at the bottom. Went up the
ladder. Came back down and started up again and we're working our way up to the
top until we are here tonight. We have in fact tried to incorporate everything
that we can think of. At the Planning Commission level, the Planning Commission
has in fact recommended approval subject to a number of conditions which are
really just relating to some things that are very standard that are put into
development agreements and we don't have a problem with that. We've been to the
HRA last Thursday night and the HRA did approve the development contract for
this project and now our last step is here tonight. Our goal in terms of what
we've been trying to accomplished and what we talked about last Thursday night
and also in other meetings we've had here in the last few weeks is that we're
looking for closure or a closing on this particular property around the middle
of December. That's very, very important in terms of where we're at right now.
Everything kind of backs up because we then have to get into our financing and
get that done so we can close the middle of December so we are right on track
and have been for the last few weeks and would very much I'd like to stay there.
When we talked with, when Bill comes up here, we would like to kind of go over
the conditions. In general I think that we just received the staff report with
the conditions tonight. We've been reading them and going over them. I think
in general we don't have any problem with any of the conditions with maybe one
exception and that's something that as Bill comes up here he can talk about but
it essentially involves the access to Outlot A. We've changed the road on
Outlot A to put the road, the north/south road coming inbetween the one building
27 '
IICity Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
IIand on the west side of Outlot A. There's also another access driveway on the
south side of Outlot A. Right now we just simply don't know exactly what's
Igoing to go out on Outlot A. The only thing that we would like it to just have
the opportunity to come back when we know what that use is. To cane back and
just put it in front of you and say this is the use. Now can we just talk about
that access rather than just simply shutting the door at this time without
II knowing what's going to be there, we'd simply like the opportunity to come back.
We fully understand that you might say no, we agree there shouldn't be any on
West 78th or on Market Blvd.. We understand that that might be the case but we
I would like the opportunity to at least come back to this body and say this is
the use. This is what we think and this is how we think it could work. The
reason for that is because the way the access is right now and the driveways may
work fine. May absolutely have no problem with it. On the other hand, we may
find in working with the traffic engineer that maybe there's a better solution
and we don't know what that solution is right now. We'd simply like the
opportunity to cane back. With that one exception, we do not have any problem
Iwith the conditions the way it's worded in the staff report on pages 11 and 12.
We don't have any problem with the language in there. We can live with any of
that.
IIMayor Q7m►iel: And 13.
Jim Winkles: And 13. Right. I'm sorry. And 13. Those 3 pages. The way the
IIwording is on that, we can live with that. Just the one exception. We'd only
like the opportunity to come back. With that I guess I'd ask Bill to come up
and kind of walk through the plans. We certainly would try to answer any
I questions that you would have. Either myself or Todd Kristoferson who's also
from Am►con or Bill or myself. Again the schedule, as Bill's coming up here,
we're looking at a closure mid-December. We would then want to start the
' project just as soon as possible. There's always things you have to go through
with financing and the weather at that time of the year, towards the end of the
year can always wreck havoc on you but the idea is that we want to be in this
building, end of next sump►er we want to have people in this space. We do have a
couple of our people that will be going in this building present tonight that
are very interested in what happens tonight. Bernie Hanson's here. Chanhassen
Lawn and Sports who would very much like to go in this project and also Gary
IICooper from Cooper Super Value is also here too. Both of which are key people
in this project and both have a very big interest in what happens here tonight.
This is Bill Brisley with Amcon.
IIBill Brisley: Good evening. Let me walk you through the building. Just talk
about what the materials are. The building massing basically is organized in a
way to minimize the negative effects of a very long building with basically the
Isame type of use the full length. Large anchor buildings will be 20 feet high
and pulled forward. The shorter infill buildings between the larger buildings
will be only 18 feet high and will be recessed back between 4 and 8 feet from
Ithe larger buildings. The materials used on the larger buildings will be
cement, plaster or stucco in varying shades of light to medium gray. The
shorter infill buildings will be sided with gray wood lap siding and white trim
Iboards. The buildings will have 2 foot steps in elevation occurring 8 times as
it extends from north to south on the site. These steps will occur at the
transition points between the lower and higher buildings and really lend to the
variety of the massing. For a unifying effect I have given all the buildings a
I2 foot high warm medium gray rock face base pediment that extends up to 4 feet
' 28
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 •
at the piers and the corners and runs the
p ns around the full per�mmeter of all t e
buildings including the two outlot buildings. Also unifying the whole is a
continuous color of burgandy coping for the top corgal course at the eave.
There will be step cordling at all the roof edges on the project. The length of
the eave will be punctuated by slight notches over the piers at the low retail
buildings and by the step gabled parapets on the anchor buildings. All shop
fronts will be articulated by individual burgandy canvas awnings at geometric
intervals between the piers. These awnings will not be the rubberized
translucent and back lighted variety. There will be oranmentation on the
buildings in the form of stucco cannonballs center on the middle steps of the
parapets. All piers will have a blue green ceramic tile medallion centered at
10 feet high. These medallions will continue on the back of the center at the
same height and interval. At each pier you will see a burgandy goose necked I
decorative light fixture with it's illumination focused downward. This same
light fixture will also be found over each rear entry tenant door. The stucco
building fronts will be articulated with recessed panels painted darker shades
of gray to enhance their depth and sculptural impact. All shop fronts will be
clear mil finished aluminum. The back wall of the center will be 14 foot 8
stepping down 2 feet at the transition points. The material used will be an
alternate from smooth, light gray, single score concrete block and darker gray
rock faced block stripes and will have the same gabled parapet treatment at the
center of the anchor buildings. Again, the back wall will have the same 2 foot
and 4 foot rock face base pediment details as the front walls. The tenant rear
entry doors will be painted out, door and frame, blue green to match the ceramic
tile medallions. Please note the diamond shaped opening at the center of the
gable of the anchor tenant. Suspended into space will be brightly painted
burgandy steel tubes criss crossing the opening. At the intersection of these
tubes will be a 16 x 16 inch painted steel frame holding a medallion of similar
ceramic tile. Somewhat visible by day through the diamond openings will be the
brighly painted undersides of the blue green steel roofing seams and burgandy
structural components of the gabled roof. The sense of drama will be heighten
at night when the inside of the gables will be glowing from plighting within.
The effect creating sillouettes of the suspended medallions. The lowest portion
of the diamond opening will still be 5'4" off the surface of the roof providing
the necessary parapet for mechanical screening. This construction will extend
back 24 feet from the front face where it will die into a similarly detailed
stepped and gabled parapet wall of stucco. The side walls of these front
mechanical screens will be 9'4" off the roof. A similar screen at the back wall
will be 4 feet at the side walls and extend 12 feet forward into the building
terminating into another stepped and gabled parapet wall as does the front
section and will have medallions centered on the stucco and gabled area in lieu
of the diamond openings. Mechanical units on the lower retail roofs will be
kept forward in the front half of the building and will be screened by a 5 foot
parapet wall at the front. For the view from the rear, the mechanical units
will be painted light gray to match the back of the parapet walls to draw as
little attention to them as possible. The Planning Commission voiced great
concern about the end treatment of the building nearest to 78th and how we would
handle this very visible part of the center. Our solution has been to make the
front, the end and the back the same front wall design as specified on the other
parts of the frontage so that in effect that portion of the design will only
have shop front design with awnings in finished details. The vet and the
cleaners will have small buildings that will be in character with the center.
The vet building on the corner will be a brick building with asphalt shingled
roof. The rock face foundation will be the same as that used on the shopping
29 ,
IICity Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
IIcenter. The cleaners to the east of the vet will be even more similar in design
to the shopping center. You will have the same color standing seam metal
I roofing as, the gables over the anchor tenants. The walls will be detailed in
wood lap siding with white trim boards as we have done in the retail buildings.
There will also be the same rock face concrete foundation wall that is found on
I all the buildings in the project. The gabled end of the false dormer to the
street side and the drive-thru canopy will be open. This is the cleaners. It
will be opened, framed to resemble the gabled design of the anchor tenants.
Window frames and doors will be the same mil finish as the center. If there's
IIany questions?
Councilman Boyt: Have you got any pictures of this besides this one?
II Bill Brisley: No.
Councilman Boyt: So you don't have a picture' of the vet?
IIBill Brisley: What you've been passed out. Not any renderings.
' Jim Winkles: The renderings just show the rendering of the initial building.. .
or the expansion of the center either. For what would be expanded. That'd be
looking I guess right through one of these outlot buildings is there. In total
what we have then is a project with the main shopping center would be, as Paul
said, somewhat over 90,000 square feet in size. With the outlots, depending on
what all happens here, that would be approximately another 20,000 to 25,000
square feet of additional space so when it's all said and done, the entire
I project is built out, you'll be looking at a project probably somewhere between
110,000-120,000 square feet in size. To put that in perspective, tax wise the
initial project would probably pay a little bit over $200,000.00 worth of taxes •
4I and all totaled, when this project is all built out, there'd probably be a total
tax on this property of between $300,000.00 and $350,000.00 a year that would be
paid once the project, the initial project plus the future outlots are
Icompleted.
Councilman Boyt: That's not counting Outlot A right?
IIJim Winkles: No. $200,000.00 would be initially but when you finish out Outlot
A and the two, initially the first 70,000 some square feet. 75,000 square feet,
is only going to be about 200,000. When you finish out everything, the entire
' project, Outlot A included, you'd be up in the $300,000.00 to $350,000.00 range
for total taxes paid. Including Outlot A.
I Mayor Ctmiel: Thanks Jim. Is there anyone who would like to address this
issue? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would
like to indicate their concerns one way or the other? This is a public hearing.
If not, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing.
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Q viiel: Okay, Bill we'll start at your end.
I
30
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I may want more than one opportunity here but I'll
start by saying that one of my issues that I'd like to hear more discussion
about is the part of the shopping center that faces to the west. Monterey
Drive. To me that looks like the back of a shopping center. While the
shopping center has to have a back somewhere I supposed, except I'm quite
concerned that eventually Monterey Drive is going to have traffic to other
retail customers and I'm concerned that they're going to be driving down a
rather long back to a building. It just seems odd to me. It's like creating an
alley. So that's one concern. I have another concern that wasn't presented
here but there in the discussion from the Planning Commission they got to
talking about the signs on this. I'm concerned when we start talking about
letters that are 5 feet high. That's a big letter and I think it's out of
character with what we have in the rest of the city so that's another concern.
My third area of concern is anytime we have drive-thrus, I'm a little wary I
guess and I don't know that I have an excellent reason for being concerned. It's
just a red flag to me so when I see a drive thru for the dry cleaner, I just
wonder about the kinds of problems that might create. So those are my three
areas of concern. My fourth area of concern is that I think the City is, the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority is investing a good bit of money in this and
from what I see, this is a kind of a negative tax situation. It's not
generating more than it's costing us in tax dollars in there but they have the
whole district to deal with and I understand that. They're making a substantial
investment here and I see this as potentially costing them more in tax dollars
than this site is bringing in. So those are my four areas of which really 3,
the first three are the legitimate ones for the Council.
Mayor Ch oriel: Who'd like to address those particular issues that Bill has '
brought up? Jim?
Jim Winkles: I'd ask Bill to core up too. Taking the first one of Monterey ,
Drive. That's an issue that came up repeatedly at the staff level and at the
Planning Commission level. What we have tried to do, maybe Bill can explain this
but what we're trying to do on the back side, which is the west side of this
property over there, we've taken a couple different views on this thing. The
first one is that what we have in terms of Monterey Drive is a cul-de-sac. Our
feeling is that as a result of that, we're probably going to have very limited
traffic. It's not a thru street. It's a cul-de-sac. We have entrances off of
Monterey Drive in the back of our property that are really, we believe are going
to be used for deliveries. For employees and for other people, maybe bringing
something to the back of a Chanhassen Lawn and Sports or something like that.
We believe that's going to have rather limited traffic. We've also recognized
that there still could be businesses over to the west and you have to be
sensitive to that so what we've tried to do, carry a lot of the same materials
around from the front, put it on the back. Take landscaping, some bermings,
things like that to create a softer image over there. It won't be nearly as
busy as the front of the building obviously with all the customer parking but
the idea was to try to handle it architecturally with materials. Try to handle
it architecturally with plantings and berming over there. Hiding all of the
trash enclosures so you don't see those from the road. Inevitably though you
still come down to sane project has to have a back. You can't just design
everything the same but we've tried to take into account that it is going to be
visible. On the northern end of the project we've actually carried some of the
window treatments, some of those other treatments around all three sides of that
northern end of the building which was something that the Planning Commission
31 '
illCity Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
was very concerned about that we do. What we've tried to say is that's the most ,
prominent area in the north side of the building so let's actually carry the
II materials all the way around. Glass materials, the whole works there to
effectively make that look like a three sided building which it could be
depending on what tenant actually works out there. Signing, I guess I would
' ask...
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask a question about that second point if I might. The
drawings that we have make it look like there's no accesses to the building from
II that side. You can't have any employee parking if they don't have any way of
getting in the building can you?
I Bill Brisley: There are doors. If you look at the elevations, there are doors
up and down the entire. .. All of these are doors.
IJim Winkles: There is a service door in the back for every tenant.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Now that's different than this elevation.
I Bill Brisley: What that is is a massing study to give, it really addresses the
roof line... This elevation is inaccurate. The elevation that we will
presently build from. That is just a massing computer study to show the roof.
l On that subject I'll bring the actual drawing, they're showing it up on the
overhead. One of the things we've achieved on this back wall is we go in and
out, created these gables, created these small mechanical units and give a lot
I of variety going on in the back of that building. A lot more than you'd find in
most backsides of centers. Some of the materials that we've used and the
colors, I have two colored photographs here. One is, and keep in mind that
there's not any signage which adds to the gaiety and adds to a lot of the
II quality of, I might pass these around. One is the back. You almost can't tell
the difference between the two except there aren't any gables on it or there
aren't any canopies so I think we've gone to a great extent to make that back
Iinteresting and be of some quality.
Councilman Boyt: Well I feel a little bit better about it having seen this.
What about the possibility of putting some windows in back there?
11 Jim Winkles: I think windows always becomes a little bit, in terms of who the
ultimate tenant becomes, in terms of what their use is and what they're going to
do. It's hard to say in terms of right now, if the tenant wanted windows and
that was necessary for his business, they would go in. One of the things that
you face with windows in the back is they can become a real security problem for
I tenants. Kids can go by, rocks can get thrown, things like that and they can
become a real security problem not only for the tenants but for the police
departments so it really depends on the tenant themselves. In general we don't
want to encourage a lot of activity in the back of a building. We don't want
that to be a place that is welcome to a lot of people. It should be an area
that should be a little bit more secure and we don't want to encourage a lot of
activity back there. A lot of people waiting back there or anything like that.
II We want to really avoid any kind of security problems. Signing, Bill can you
came and explain the sign program? I guess the first issue in terms of the 5
foot signs. What that is is for the larger, the end cap type users,
I specifically the best example being for the Super Value store itself. Many of
the particular people that will go into a center like this will have their own
' 32
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 �►
I/
t ype of sig n criteria. Their own logos. Their own type style. Their own color
type letters that they use that is really a trademark for their particular
business. One of the things in this particular case it happens with Super Value
has a very large logo that they typically use from building to building. Same
color. Same style. It's also felt necessary here because part of the draw of
the center is going to be towards Th 5. To get something that far away, you
want to have something of some size that is visible. They very much want a
market towards TH 5 and towards that traffic. That is the thought process
behind that. It's also as you see in the report, is based into the anchor type
tenants type situations so that the majority of the tenants will not have those
kind of signs. The other idea in terms of signs is that people would be able to
use their own type style colors. That sort of thing to bring out the variety in
this particular building. I'm not sure if that was exactly, you mentioned the 5
foot signs and maybe Paul, you want to elaborate.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's not a sign. We're talking about a 5 foot letter.
Jim Winkles: Right.
Councilman Boyt: And not one letter but a series of them. ,
Paul Krauss: If I could respond to that a little bit. We were originally
working with a 2 foot high letter size for all the tenants exclusive of Super
Value. Super Value always had a sanewhate different sign package which we knew
from the start. I received same calls from the developer asking that major
tenants be allowed to have somewhat larger signage. The 5 foot in particular
came about becaues MCI Liquors, one of the proposed tenants, and they have a
sign that is currently using that height in letters.
Councilman Boyt: In Chanhassen? The MGM store has got a 5 foot sign on it? '
Paul Krauss: According to Brad Johnson. That's what it measured at.
Brad Johnson: To our astonishment, we found when we went over and measured the
MGM, the letters on the MCI are almost 6 feet high and the shall letters are 3
feet high.
Paul Krauss: What we did though is we took it a step further which I think was
more important information for our recommendation in that I contacted some
compatriot planners to see what they were doing on shopping centers recently and
generally found across the board that most everybody gives some sort of an
allowance to major tenants. And letters in the 4' to 5' height were not out of,
were fairly consistent with what I was hearing from other cities. You know you
look at the size of the letters sounds real big. You know 5 foot against a
building sounds real large but you've got to realize though it's a very large
building and it's going to be set back quite a ways from any external view and
the letter size diminishes tremendously when you put it up against a building
mass. All I can say is that's a fairly consistent standard and in exchange for
that, we are getting a comprehensive sign package. All the signage there will
use individually lighted letters. There will be some standardization for that. '
We know what the smaller tenants are getting. We've proposed that this sign •
package be extended over to Ckitlot A. We know what we're looking for in terms
of monument signage so there's a give and take situation here as well.
33 •
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
11 Mayor Chmiel: Bill, just as a point. It's not a sign but the cross on St.
Hubert's, as Don mentioned, is 8 feet tall.
ICouncilman Boyt: Well it's good to have that as a frame of reference. I
appreciate that. It looks to me like if the diagram is correct, your sign is
facing Market Blvd. and not TH 5. Am I wrong in that?
IPaul Krauss: There's additional signage on the rear of the building that would
be oriented to TH 5.
IICouncilman Boyt: So we don't even have a picture of the signage on here?
I Paul Krauss: Well yes you do. It's hard to look at it but it actually is
illustrated there.
Bill Brisley: The major tenants have signage in here.
IIPaul Krauss: That is not the 5 foot letter size that is illustrated on that
drawing. This was a relatively recent development while the staff report was
being drawn. In fact, to acconmodoate the 5 foot letters they have to modify
the gable ends a little bit on the front to provide enough room for that.
Councilman Boyt: So we don't know what the signs are going to look like is what
you're telling me.
Paul Krauss: Well we know it's a 5 foot letter and we know where it's going to
I go. It's just a matter of making the changes and I can leave that to Bill to
see what would be required to accommodate it.
IBill Brisley: Maybe this is not appropriate to bring this up but I will anyway.
This is what the sign will look like but that's a little bit smaller one.
That's contingent on him agreeing to put his larger sign on the back side which
will look like this.
ICouncilman Boyt: And again these signs are facing the Market Blvd. right?
IIMayor Chmiel: Yep.
Councilman Boyt: Alright. Well the...
IIJim Winkles: It's relative to the issue. I think what we're trying to
accomplish is a sign plan that has some sense of fairness and some sense of
equality to each tenant within the building with the bottom line being we're
Itrying to do something that is aesthetically going to fit with the building and
going to also allow for a good clear, uncluttered signage as well as something
that will be a benefit to the ultimate user which is the tenant which really
I depends on that sign for ultimately his business. ' We would hope that what we're
II suggesting is workable. We have a fairly massive structure. A very big
building. Very tall building. We're going to have a big areas to sign. We
want to have something that is consistent with what they've done elsewhere and
also is going to provide a very nice clean image to this building. I guess I
would share the fact that a big building, this kind of signing is probably not
going to look out of place at all. In fact it may even look small compared to
IIthe size of the project we're building here right now. What we don't want to
' 34
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 1
let happen is we don't want a building that's going to be cluttered with a lot I/
of unnecessary signs. We like to keep our signs on our buildings very clean,
very bright. We want the color of the signs to add color to this project. At
the same time we want to recognize that it's vital to businesses to be able to
sign their buildings. Their product or their name appropriately and we hope
that what we're doing fits all those things. It's clean. It's bright. It's
not being obnoxious in the sense that it's being too big for the size or
anything like that so it's also consistent with what major tenants tend to want
in any project. They typically tend to want bigger signs. Some preferential
treatment.
Councilman Boyt: Jim, there's some natural contradictions between the desire to
design a building that has clean signs that stand out. That conflict on the one
with the desire of the owner of the business to stand out and our desire to not
have than stand out too much. So how big are the letters on the development
here on the west end of town?
Jim Winkles: Which one? On Town Square? ,
Councilman Boyt: Whatever we call this right over here by the Superette.
Jim Winkles: Okay, Town Square. There we have a maximum sign area out there of
30 inches. Now some of our letters are not that. Some letters are about 30
inches exactly and some have double stacked letters. The maximum sign area from
top to bottom is 30 inches so we have some letters out there that are in fact 2
1/2 feet and we have other sign people that have put one word on top of another
word and within that they've used the total 30 inches so in general up there, if
you look at it together, you'd see 30 inches is the size of the letter.
Councilman Boyt: I ranenber when that came through. We had, not you and I but '
there was a similar discussion about signs size and at some sacrifice this
center accepted letters that were smaller than what they wanted. Now we're
turning around and saying to the next center that comes in, well forget that
standard. We're now going to give you 5 foot letters for your major tenant. I'm
not sure that that's being fair.
Jim Winkles: The difference there, and since we were involved in that project
obviously and since we still own that project, in fairness to those people out
there, I think the type of lettering that when we were involved in that project
we went back to the tenants and said can you live with this? This is where
we're at and they decided that they could. The anchor tenants in that '
particular case. The difference though is that that project in terms of the
building, the road relationship, this building is set back almost 4 to 5 times
greater distance from the road than what this building is. Town Square right
there is set back only about 70 feet from West 78th Street. Now some of the
distances, now I haven't measured it but just looking at it, I would guess that
the western portion of some of these projects is going to be set back 500 feet
from Market Blvd. so the distance in terms of the automobile driving and looking
at the sign is going to be substantially greater on Market Blvd. and West 78th
Street than they would here. Granted however that the Super Value is closer.
I mean Super Value is probably set back about 40 to 50 feet farther than the
closest point from West 78th Street to Town Square. I grant you that is
probably an exception which is I guess in my experience has been that the anchor
tenants, the big tenant has typically been given same preferential treatment so
35
IICity Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
III guess I would argue that the differences here is simply the distance back from
the road which I think has a significant impact in terms of visibility.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, what's the difference in structure heights?
Jim Winkles: Structure heights, where the signing, the peak of Town Square is
IIprobably a little bit lower than some of the peaks on this building that will be
out there. The difference also in this particular case is you've got to
remember that we've got, where Town Square effectively has a very level
I situation to it. Not much elevation difference. You see the parking lot
there's probably a foot and a half grade difference from one end of the parking
lot to the other end of the parking lot and this site from the north side to the
II south side, we're talking about a 20 foot grade elevation difference and I don't
think anybody would believe that if you went out and just looked at the site
right now, there's 20 feet difference from West 78th Street down to the south
II part of the site which means the buildings will have a step to it too as you
down which means that the building in same areas is going to be much lower than
the road so you're going to be looking down at different elevations and at quite
a distance. This is going to be going all the way through. If you look down
' from, you know the intersection of West 78th and Market Blvd. down to the
southwest corner of the site down there, you're probably talking about a
distance of 1,100-1,200 feet. You're talking about quite a distance here.
•I Councilman Boyt: So one of the assumptions we could make is that the proposed
vet clinic and dry cleaners would certainly have letters or sign areas not to
II exceed 30 inches. We could just assume that because that's fronting...
They
Jim Winkles: Yeah. They wouldn't be allowed the 5 foot sign, wall signs.
ICouncilman Boyt: It seemed to me that when we put this center in, it was at
some sacrifice that Total Mart or whatever the name is.
Jim Winkles: It's Brooke's.
IICouncilman Boyt: That Brooke's accepted that they would t their
Pu gas
pumps in
but not put prices up and yet because of the City's overwhelming concern about
' signs and the low impact we wanted to have with signs, there's no gas price
signs over there. They had there temporarily but they're gone now. I think we
need to have that same sort of conservatism when we consider. Now maybe on the
II wall that fronts on TH 5, I can see the need if you're going to try to pull
vision off of that highway to have a big letter but I would think that once you
get people down into Market Blvd., they've already decided they're caning to see
you and the letter just needs to be big enough so they can find you out of the
1 whole strip. So I'd sure like this idea of letters to be examined. I agree
with you. You are considerably further off the road and that needs to play a
part, from Market Blvd. While�I was surprised to hear MGM's currently at 6
IIfeet, 'the thought of a 5 foot letter just has a shock value I guess.
Jim Winkles: I think it does because when a person thinks about that, as you're
Istanding out here and thinking my, that's really large. On the other hand, a
distance factor can charge that. It really does and I would agree. You think 5
feet or 6 feet, I would never have guessed that MGM is 6 feet myself. I would
never have guessed it.
I
36
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
Mayor Chmiel: Besides Bill, there's a lot of near sighted people.
Brad Johnson: Bill, if you go over and look at the video store over there. ,
That's about 3 1/2 on that tenant. They all were put in because they wanted, I
believe it was built before they had the new building...but the idea was that
was supposed to be attractive to TH 5. We actually could not believe the
height. I went over and looked and...go over and look because I could not
believe it, but it is and really the distance you are away. Like he's saying,
we're 400 to 800 feet away from the major traffic area and signage is, in our
leases they're asking for certain kind of signage. The major tenants. Super
Value alone is bigger than all of Town Square. Town Square is a 18,000 square
foot center and the first phase of the Super Value store is 22,000 and you're
just kind of got to get this all in, this is a big building. We're still
sticking with the primary idea...15% of it's frontage to be signage. Isn't that
correct? That's kind of the standard. There's no letter size but 15% of the
frontage that they use to ban for signage. We have in our first center, in all
of our centers, set a sign standard in every single one that fits each
particular area. Each particular location. So the clinic has like a 2 foot
basis. It just depends on where they're located and how far from the road and
how big the tenant.
• S
Councilman Boyt: Well Brad you know that we've got some real specific
requirements on sign size. In the City ordinance we have maximum area that you
can have.
Brad Johnson: 15% of the front of the building. 1
Councilman Boyt: Isn't it 6 feet high and something in terms of total sign?
Well, I'm ready to move on.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to do that too.
Jim Winkles: There was just one other concern was the drive thru that came up
and the drive thru was in fact eliminated from these plans and the Planning
Commission just said, come on back. Effectively said they would agree that
they'd let us come back again. Leave the issue open whether or not we could
have a drive thru...to prove to them whether or not it could work. Now with the
cleaners that's out there, that has to be proven I guess that that works like
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, what I'd like to do is probably have Mr. Cooper just address
that issue.
Brad Johnson: The drive thru is not a drive thru on the cleaners. It's a
covered parking lane. It's not like a window where you're going in. It's you
drive in, get out of your car, go in, come back out and go. It's not like, it's
a different situation.
Jim Winkles: It's a canopy.
Gary Cooper: I just wanted to address the signage. My name is Gary Cooper and
I'm the perspective proprietor. I think I've learned to look at supermarkets
differently now than I looked at them 10 years ago. We own two supermarkets and
I used to think they were our stores. What I've realized is they're not our
37
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
11 stores. The people that shop in our stores consider than their stores and I
think in regards to the signing, I think there's some reasons why when this
becomes your store, there would be same reasons why you would like good signing.
' If you look up and down TH 5 at our competition. At Rainbow. At Driskill's
down here. Driskill's up there. If you look at supermarkets all over that
we're competing with, they all have very significant signage and what will
happen is, in order to give you the kind of quality and the kind of low prices
that we'd like to give you in this store, we're going to need as much volume as
we can. Those signs will help drive that volume and in my business I can have
II all the intentions in the world to deliver you quality products at low prices
but in order to do that you've got to have the volume. So like those signs
we're talking about, there's probably $20,000.00-$30,000.00 worth of signs. It's
a big expense. The only reason we want to spend that money on those signs is to
II help us give you the kind of store that you'd like to call your store and that's
a store where we can get the traffic in the store to get the volume just to keep
those prices and to keep that quality down there. Just the cost of the signs.
' If it wouldn't drive that volume, if it wouldn't be a necessary ingredient to
give you that kind of quality store, we wouldn't want to spend the money on it
so that's all I wanted to say about that.
' Councilman Boyt: Can I ask a question? You mentioned Rainbow Foods. How many
square feet is that?
11 Gary Cooper: I don't know.
Councilman Boyt: What about Driskill's? Do you know how big that is?
II 1
Gary Cooper: I don't know but Rainbow's is half the front of the building. It's
gargantuan. •
I Councilman Boyt: No, I don't mean the size of the sign. I mean the square
footage of the building it's on.
IGary Cooper: The square footage of the building is, I think it's a 60,000
square foot building.
ICouncilman Boyt: Three times the size?
Gary Cooper: Yeah, it's 3 times the size but the sign is much, much larger than
what we're talking about. We're not asking for that kind of signage but I'm
Ijust feeling that we need the presentation so that we can, it's just part of
what we need to have the volume to give you the kind of store you deserve.
•
That's the only point I have to make.
IMayor Chmiel: Thank you Gary. Tom?
I Councilman Workman: Bill started out with the first item on Monterey and I
think that's one of the biggest concerns that I have and then going to item 4.
One of item 4's, outdoor storage area to be enclosed by a rock faced wall. What
I would like to see as a condition and incidentally, I like the detail of this
I report. I guess that's a compliment to staff. We look at a lot of different
things and a lot of things were uncovered and looked at. The condition that I'd
like to add is that all the conditions must be completed as a part of the
Igeneral construction of the project and shall not be left to tenants. In
' 38
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 1
particular the outdoor storage, rear outdoor storage areas. In other words,
these improvements shall not become a requirement of a current or future tenant.
Taking into account that I think it's something that needs to be completed so we
don't have to go back to tenants and say that looks ugly, let's cover it up. My
only other point is, if we can somehow between the developer and the City in
regards to the existing bus stop on Market Blvd., take into account current and
future transportation problems and that a curb cut be made to move a parked bus
off of Market Blvd. for safety. Does everybody kind of know what I'm talking
about? I don't know how we would work with that. If we'd have to require an
easement. I think as Market Blvd. opens up and that's going to be this season
yet, I think we're going to have a lot of traffic there. We had a situation up
on West 78th where the bus stops in the morning now and evening I believe and
it's a problem. I think the bus stop is an amenity to this site and I think
somehow we should work to move it off the road for safety. That's it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm looking at item 1 and especially that the PUD
agreement provide for landscape bond as outlined in the staff report. I'm I
assuming that that's a requirement that you put forth on page 9. Paul, is that
correct?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Has anything been done to have this be a
requirement for all developers rather than just this particular one?
Paul Krauss: Yes Councilwoman Dimler. We have made that proposal to the
Planning Commission and they indicated that they would support us bringing then
an ordinance amendment that would make that requirement for all non-single
family development in the City. We've got a lengthy list of these things that
we have to bring to them but that is one of the ones. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: That is being done and relatively fast I hope. Also on
item 5, I guess what I heard Jim to say is that he, it says in there that no
additional access will be provided to serve Outlot A. Is that what Jim was
talking about when he wanted a time?
Mayor Ciriiel: Yes. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. How does staff feel about that?
Paul Krauss: Wz have very serious reservations o5 any additional access to '
Outlot A. As you noted with the bus concern, there is going to be a significant
volume of traffic on those area streets as the CBD develops. We're doing
everything we can to channelize that. TO make it flow smoothly and we've talked
to BIB about this. Our engineering department has done a lot of work on it as
well. We believe there simply isn't room to safely do it between any of the
existing curb cuts or the proposed ones and the corner. Everytime you introduce
a new curb cut, you have traffic slowing down. Speeding up. Turning in.
Turning out. We also have a site plan here that gives Outlot A the best access
of any property in this project. It has the two main access points on either
side of the property. It actually has better access than the Super Value does
so not only do we think it's a hazard and don't recommend that it be allowed, we
don't see the need either.
39
11 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
ICouncilwoman Dimler: I guess with that information I would recommend that item
5 stay as is.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that it?
Councilwoman Dimler: That's it.
IMayor Chmiel: Okay, the only thing, no sense reiterating what everyone else is
saying. I think that the sign size of the letters to be put on that building of
5 feet, because of distances and size of the structures that are compatible in
my opinion. The other thing that I see within the staff recommendation as you
indicated in there, that there are 10 following conditions. That should be
indicated as 11 conditions. With Tom's that would be 12.
IIPaul Krauss: That's supposed to be the, not ten.
Mayor Chmiel: With the following conditions instead of teh? Okay. With that
I guess some of the concerns, the only concerns I had too was given adjacent to
Monterey but I think from what I've seen in those pictures, it's sort of
clarifies to me that it's not just going to be the back side of the building.
IWill each of those businesses have access from the back door or is that going to
be just a back door policy for loading and unloading?
IBill Brisley: Each business will have their own back door.
Mayor Chmiel: Will it be accessible from the back? Okay. That's all I have.
I'm ready to entertain a motion. I
•Councilman Boyt: I have a couple more questions.
IIMayor Chmiel: Are they...
Councilman Bost: They're pertinent to this.
IMayor Chmiel:+ Let's try to pull it together within a short period of time
though.
IICouncilman Boyt: I'd love to. Parking. We talked about parking. I guess I
can just start out by saying that I think grocery stores demand a great deal of
parking and if it's going to work Gary, you want to have a lot of parking. I
Isee the staff going to 4.5 which they say is standard for shopping centers. I
just wonder if that's standard for grocery stores.
IIPaul Krauss: The standard that I'm using...
Councilman Boyt: Wait a minute. We've got our expert here.
IGary Cooper: The development people from Super Value say it's outstanding.
That there's reserve parking for expansion and that they have people that are
experts in this and Plan Mark reviewed it and they said the parking situation we
have is just outstanding. We don't have to fudge on it at all. We negotiated
real hard to get what we want and we got the kind of parking that we think will
be excellent for the supermarket.
I
i40
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 I/
vitt
Councilman Boyt: On this landscaping plan there's a berm between Monterey and
the back- side of the building. How high is that? Are we talking about
something that's going to shield the back of that building? ,
Paul Krauss: No. I believe it's in the 2 to 3 foot height range.
Bill Brisley: 4 feet at the... !
Paul Krauss: It's 4 foot at the top.
Bill Brisley: 4 foot at the top but that's only...
Councilman Boyt: Interestingly enough, given their desire to have visibility
off of TH 5, we're putting in 10 and 12 foot firs along that south face. That's
going to contrast somewhat with their desire to have visibility. Why can't we
do something like that on Monterey where I don't think Monterey's going to be
simply a back access. It may be to your shopping center but there's bound to be
development on the west side of Monterey which people are going to be driving
into. I'd like to see us do more to screen the back of your building from that
road.
Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt, perhaps I could respond to that. The reason we
were so sensitive about the back of the building is that there are a lot of
things back there that no one off site really need look at in terms of truck
loading, trash compacters, outdoor storage areas, that sort of thing. It's also
more difficult to screen than the Monterey exposure. The Monterey exposure you
can put a beam in so they're putting 6 foot trees on a 3 to 4 foot high berm.
Due to the lay of the land, it's not possible to put a berm behind that section
of the building facing south to TH 5. In the dbsence of that, we elected to
reconn►end oversized installation of trees at initial construction. I
Councilman Boyt: What I'm asking you is do we have enough trees between the
building and Monterey, even given the 3 foot or 4 foot berm, is staff convinced
that we have screened that off?
Paul Krauss: If you're asking if you won't see the back of the building, no.
You will see the back of the building. If you're asking if there's enough
landscaping to soften the image and to screen the trash areas and that sort of
thing, we believe that that job's been accomplished.
Councilman Boyt: Just one second and maybe we're done here. Okay.
Mayor Chr►iel: Jim, you wanted to make a point?. I
Jim Winkles: I guess one question and one comment. The question is regards to
the bus lane. What's the thought there? Is this kind of a drop off type lane
or place for the bus to pull in?
Mayor Chn►iel: Bus to pull in off the main road.
Councilman Workman: As it sits now, the bus is really blocking traffic there. ,
It would be.
Jim Winkles: On that southbound lane you mean? 1
41
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
AlCouncilman Workman: Correct.
II Jim Winkles: The only question I guess there is what's that mean in terms of
what are we going to be doing? Do we control that I guess or is that a MTC type
of a function? It's on the public right-of-way. I guess I don't know. Is that
II something that we have control over or we can do or something that we should try
to work with the City and MTC to try and accomplish?
II Councilman Workman: Well I would throw the word try out but to accomplish it, I
think MTC would only look favorably on it. MnDot. Whoever, would look
favorably. Public safety.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, would you like to address that?
Paul Krauss: Well it's a design issue. We've asked the developer to put in
turn lanes elsewhere. In having looked at it though, it looks as though the bus
shelter would have to be relocated. I don't think there's enough roaTi to
actually make a 12 foot wide lane. As to how that would be done.
IIJo Ann Olsen: It'd have to go through the Southwest Metro Transit Commission.
Councilman Workman: Well then I guess if you want me to change it, then I would
IIsay it should be moved because I'm saying it shouldn't be there then. This is
going to be a flurry of activity around here and we're going to have a bus at
peak times sitting there and then people trying to get around it.
IIPaul Krauss: Do we have the two southbound lanes over there Gary?
.• 1
Councilman Workman: There's not enough roam to make a curb cut there?
IIGary Warren: You can get by. I think right now, what do we have? Two buses
'that cane and leave. It's not like we have buses all during the day there but I
believe you can get around them. That's my own opinion. There's enough width
in the lanes out there to do that.
II Councilman Workman: At 7:00 a.m. when I'm coming through downtown Chanhassen
and people are getting on the bus in front of Hooked on Classics, you're right.
I can get around. I don't feel comfortable with it and it might only be for a
couple of minutes but it's causing problems.
IITodd Gerhardt: You're talking of a different width of street there. I have
talked to Southwest. It was brought up at a HRA meeting of this concern and
they asked us to look at the issue of a cut in. I did talk to the director,
Beverly, of the HRA's concerns and she was somewhat opposed to 'the idea of a cut
in. She felt that the bus is there for a short period of time and it does pull
II off to the side. It is early in the morning and she's happy with the location.
I mean they did a lot of work and study on where to put the bus stop and they're
happy there. On the going home side of the street, individuals are to park over
in the bowling alley parking lot and they have an agreement or working with an
II agreement with John Dory to park over there. That was a concern of Super
II Value's if people were going to park in their parking lot. There will be
signage put up there asking than to do that but Beveraly is scheduled for the
HRA meeting in November to bring HRA up to date on what they were looking at
42
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 I/
doing in those areas but that was my conversations with her.
I
Councilman Workman: I'm going to maintain my stance with a condition. Do we
want to temper it somewhat and say let's look at it. I think again, this is an
example of where we're not quite fully looking long road down the future at the
transportation problems that we're creating. Certainly I don't need somebody to
tell me every day how thin downtown is and everything. I think we have all
sorts of problems and I think we need to look a little more in the future at and
this is just one little problem. I resided in the city of St. Cloud for several
years and I'll tell you what, the bus situation, and believe me they have more
buses than our city does but we're going to be big someday. Where are buses
going? Where are they parking? Where are they dropping people off? It was all
you heard and so I think we're going to create a problem here. I don't see this
being anywhere near wide enough for a full bus to stop and have people board and
get in and off of. I would suggest either a curb cut or we remove the bus stop
from this location totally. II
Jim Winkles: Could I just suggest that I don't necessarily disagree. I think
your logic in the sense of looking at this as an issue that should be looked at
is very good. I agree with you that we don't know what's all going to happen
but could I suggest that since the MTC may or may not like the way it is right
now and there could be some issues on whether it should be moved or whether it
shouldn't be moved, whether this location is exactly right, I guess could I just
suggest then maybe that we be required to work with the MTC and the staff to
take a look at this and maybe come back to you as a separate type of issue on
something like this. I think there's some issues out there right now that we
don't all have our hands around. I've never talked to the MTC but I guess I'd
be willing to do that with your staff and sit down and say, where should this be
and what's the best thing to do here. Curb cut, apparently we don't want
anymore curb cuts on Market Blvd. so that might be... I
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying Jim that I don't see, and I'll have to talk
to Todd tomorrow about it but I just don't see MTC saying you know, it's going
to be a lot safer for us to leave that bus in the road and not move it a little
bit off to the side and out of traffic. I don't see them saying that. I think
they're going to let us put this bus stop wherever we want. ,
Jim Winkles: Again, I'm not opposed to working with the city and MTC to get
this thing done. It's just I'd like to make sure I understand what it means and
where it should go and try to look down the road as you suggested. Not
necessarily 1989 but what it's going to mean in 1982 when there's hopefully
going to be thousands of more people out here.
Councilman Workman: And we're going to have 5 buses a day. '
Jim Winkles: My other comment then, if I could make one last pitch. Just
giving us the opportunity to come back on the access. I understand and we i
understand from the City Engineers and from the staff that they don't see it and
I may not see it right now but there are those uses and there are those things
that+might suggest it could be different. Otherwise, I guess we would just like
that opportunity to come back and not necessarily, we understand full well that
it might be impossible. Thank you.
I
43
11 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I have a quick question. The 13 stalls for the grocery
expansion. What happened to them because they've dropped out of your conditions
and yet in your staff report you said they were hazardous?
Paul Krauss: There should be a condition that says to delete those stalls.
1 Councilman Boyt: Eliminate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side?
Paul Krauss: Right.
IIMayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I will entertain a
motion.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'm going to make a motion. Try to put it all
together here. The subject being the rezoning of a PUD #89-2, development stage
I approval for the preliminary plat for Market Square with the 11 conditions
proposed by staff and Councilman Workman's condition making it number 12: Also
that Jim work with the City and the M'IC on the bus issue to accommodate future
traffic on Market Blvd.. Did I include everything?
ICouncilman Boyt: It's Southwest Metro.
I Councilwoman Dirtier: Okay. Southwest Metro instead of MTC. Also, condition 5
stays as is.
I Paul Krauss: I was just trying to clarify something. Tome, you proposed a
stipulation regarding all conditions must be incorporated. Was that part of it?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. I think that was condition 12 and then the bus thing
IIwas 13. I would second that motion basically then, the condition for the bus
stop, I guess I would like to amend it to basically say move it or lose it.
Change it or move it.
IIMayor Chmiel: I like the other one better. rove it or lose it. Okay.
Councilman Workman: Do you accept that?
ICouncilwoman Dimler: That's fine. I'll accept that.
1 Councilman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded POD #89-2 Development Stage
approval for the preliminary plat for Market. Square subject to the following
conditions:
1 i. Enter into a PUD contract with the city that will contain all of the
conditions of approval and which will be recorded against all lots platted
in the project. The POD agreement should provide for a landscape bond as
' outlined in the staff report.
2. obtain final plat approval for the site prior to requesting building
permits.
3. Enter into a development contract with the city that requires financial
sureties with construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and
City Council for all public improvements.
44
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
4. Revise architectural plans as need to:
-confirm that the Vet Clinic will have windows on the north and west
elevations;
-trash enclosures are to be constructed from rock faced block compatible with
the main building;
-relocate the trash enclosure serving the dry cleaner to the west side of the
building or incorporate it into the structure;
-outdoor storage areas are to be enclosed by a rock faced block wall;
-the trash compactor is to be provided with a rock faced block screen wall
and relocated to the north to provide a 24' wide drive aisle; and
-the addition of any drive-up windows will require site plan approval wherein
it will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that internal
circulation patterns and parking provisions will not be impacted. '
5. Outlot A is required to have buildings designed to utilize architectural
compatible with the shopping center. No additional access will be provided
to serve Outlot A. Only one additional monument sign is to be allowed when
the outlot is developed. The sign must be identical to monument signage
allowed elsewhere on the PUD. Until development occurs, the owner shall
establish ground cover over the site and keep it in a maintained condition.
Parking requirements for the outlot should be satisfied on it.
6. Modify and/or regulate access and parking as follows:
-provide a triangular traffic island in the West 78th Street curb cut;
-delete the sidewalk south of the crosswalk that connects to the sidewalk in
front of the super market. A pedestrian crosswalk shall be installed
on Market Boulevard adjacent to the bus shelter. The crosswalk shall be
painted and signed in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota
Manual on Traffic Controls. That the applicant work with the City staff and
the Southwest Metro Transit Commission on moving the bus shelter to
accommodate for future traffic on Market Boulevard;
--eliminate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side of the super market
expansion and modify the Vet Clinic parking area to provide a turning space
at the end of the aisle;
-all leases for the main building should require that employee parking be
located at the rear of the center; and
-any restaurants proposed in the center are subject to a site plan review
procedure. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate parking
adequacy if it is to be approved. The restaurant spaces illustrated in the
two northern tenant spaces in the main building are exempt from this I
requirement; and
-all parking lot curbing shall be B-6/12 concrete.
7. The landscaping plan should be modified as follows: I
-increase the size of conifers along the south property line from 6' to
10-12' ; and
-remove the snow storage area along Market Boulevard and landscape the space.
8. Provide final grading and drainage plans for approval. The plans should
incorporate the following: I
-the 72" storm sewer is to be installed by the developer;
-Installation of the line should be covered by the development contract. The
City can reasonably allow building permits to be issued with the
45
IICity Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
im
understanding that the 72" storm sewer, together with other public roadway
and utility improvements will be installed simultaneously with the
construction of the buildings;
-the existing catch basin adjacent to Manhold #21 in Market Boulevard should
be relocated into the new curb radius;
' -project approval by the Watershed District is required prior to building
permit issuance; and
-an erosion control plan acceptable to the city should be submitted prior to
requesting building permits.
II9. Provide final roadway and utility plans for approval. The existing 10" PVC
sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing
acceptable to the City. Existing watermains to be abandoned shall be
removed. The applicant will submit detailed construction plans and
specifications for approval by the City Engineer and provide as-built mylar
plans upon completion of construction.
10. Provide written and graphic sign covenants consistent with the description
in the October 23, 1989 staff report. The covenants will be filed with the
PUD contract.
11. Review the site lighting plan to use the ornamental fixtures east of the
super market and between the two Market Boulevard curb cuts.
12. All the conditions must be completed as a part of the general construction
of the project and shall not be left to tenants, i.e. rear outdoor storage
areas, etc..
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP FOR HIGHWAY 212.
IIPaul Krauss: The City Council is being asked to adopt the official map for
Highway 212 corridor. The official map procedures are designed to assist in the
identification and preservation of land that may be needed for highway right-of-
' way. I'd also point out that Eden Prairie, Chaska and I believe Carver County
have already adopted the official maps for their communities. The alignment
illustrated in the official map has been reviewed extensively by the City and by
1 area residents over a series of meetings. It incorporates the desire north Lake
Riley routing and modifications to the TH 101 alignment that were advocated by
the City. The Planning Commission reviewed the map on September 14th and
' recommended that it be approved. If the official map is adopted tonight, staff
expects to have requests for funding using what is known as the RALF program to
acquire and preserve right-of-way. The program allows the City to use a
revolving loan fund administered by the Metro Council, funded by the State, for
IIearly acquisition of right-of-way in those cases where the property owner has
eminent development or the fact that there's an alignment creates a hardship.
I'd also point out that work is proceeding on the envirnomental impact study for
Ithe TH 212 corridor. A draft has been developed and it's anticipated that the
final document will be completed and approved by early next sur'mer. Mr. Evan
Green from MnDot is present tonight and can help answer any questions relating
particularly to the highway corridor. Thank you.
1 46
CITY OF ,. „II
„,'
_„ il
twos),
,,,,%1 CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner
I
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 114/
iI
DATE: July 18, 1990 I
SUBJ: Final Plat Review for Market Square II Land Use Review File 89-16
Upon review of the final plat for Market Square prepared by 1
Peters , Price and Samson, I find the overall plat is consistent
with the conditions of approval stipulated in the preliminary
plat review process with the following conditions : I
1 . The final plat should reflect a 20 foot utility easement for
the proposed city waterline over the southerly portion of the
site.
II
2 . The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and
provide the necessary security.
I
jms
c : Gary Warren, City Engineer
I
I
II
II
1
II
II