The URL can be used to link to this page

1g. Resolution authorizing Acquisition of Bongard Property II E , LAW OFFICES IGRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 I 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B GRANNIS MICHAEL . MAYER VANCE B GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE J PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 I DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER I *ALSO ADMITTED TO October 4, 1989 PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN IMr. Don Ashworth Chanhassen City Hall I 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 IRE: T.H. 101 - Bongard Property Dear Don: IEnclosed please find resolution authorizing acquisition of the Bongard property. This matter should be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting next Monday night, October 9, 1989. IVery truly yours, I GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON, P.A. ----, ,......? :/_„/' __ '''N, Roger, `�1. KnutAon / RNK•�rn 7 / // Enclesu°re °'` I Manager ' s Comments: Although the Council adopted the preferred II Highway 101 realignment plan (through the Bongard property on the north side of Highway 5) , we could not approve condemnation without having funding in place. As I noted Monday evening, the revised Omnibus Tax Bill ( 487 pages) included funding of this pro- ' ject. The Governor signed the bill Tuesday. Approval of the resolution as prepared by the attorney is recommended. C, I I I , - - CITY OF CHANHASSEN I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ' Date: Resolution No. Motion By: Seconded By: RESOLUTION ' AIITHORIZING ACQIIISITION OF PROPERTY FOR PROPOSED TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, does hereby determine that it is necessary and for a public use and purpose to acquire the property described as follows for the proposed realignment of Trunk Highway 101: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the South line of said Section 12 distant 550. 00 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Section 12 ; thence , North parallel to the East line of said Section 12 to the Southerly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company; thence Southwesterly along the Southerly line of said Railroad Company right-of- way to its intersection with the South line of said Section 12 ; thence East along said South line to the point of beginning, except that part taken for State Trunk Highway Number 5. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk/Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to effect the acquisition of the aforementioned property, and that the City Attorney be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to effect negotiations and/or, if necessary, institute condemnation proceedings and to do all things necessary and incidental thereto to acquire the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 under the "quick take" provisions of the Statute. ATTEST: I Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 ' Todd rhar_ Ge dt: There are some trucks that are stored out there. One truck in particular Jerry told me. Mowers. A lot of sign equipment. That was the list 11 he gave me. He didn't give me a detailed list but those were part of that and I think we could work something out or find some alternative storage. I Councilman Boyt: Before a proposal tonight that said in principle we had sold the property for $100,000.00 provided the City and Mr. Pauls, or his people, can find a home and somewhat convenient or at least no more inconvenient home for I the equipment that's stored there until next spring. If we can get that done, I think that we ought to sell the property. II Mayor Chmiel: I guess I agree to a certain point with that Bill. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that it's still going to cost our city to put in a building of equal size anywhere from $36,000.00 to $50,000.00 more. 1 Councilman Johnson: Putting a lot better building. Mayor Chmiel: We may be having another better building. We may be consolidating everything and having everything closer but nonetheless the dollar 1 expenditure is going to be there. Glen Pauls: I've got a copy of this plan that you're proposing to build your I building and I think you could build as good a building or a lot better than what you have now for less money than that. I mean they're looking at insulated building right now because you might want to heat it. I don't know if you're lgstoring plows, you obviously don't need to insulate it. Mayor Chmiel: We can't build a building like we have there. IGlen Pauls: No, but I mean you can build a concrete building I think for around $100,000.00. I think $150,000.00 you're getting a few extras in there. II Mayor Chmiel: I did a couple checkings with a couple contractors and they told me we're in the ballpark from $136,000.00 to $150,000.00. 1 Glen Pauls: For the building on the drawing yes, but what I'm saying is I think there might be same things you could pull off that. If you're really looking to get, if you're looking to get a minimal building that will go along with your ordinances. Like the floor drains and what not, I don't know if that's really IInecessary in a building there. Todd Gerhardt: Code requires floor drains and it's only practical to have an 1 insulated roof and walls is what the architect recommended. We've got to stay with the same type of architectural style with the cracked off cinder block is the existing public works, just for unity in that area. I don't know, we've talked about this a lot. Metal buildings aren't allowed in the industrial park I and you would save minimal dollars taking the insulation out of the walls and out of the roof. The floor drains, again you're talking less than, a total of those two I would think no more than $5,000.00. The insulation and the floor I.! drain. Councilman Boyt: So we want to do a deal, I think and the question is, how do " we cover the City's concern for storage. 75 II City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Councilman Workman: I think it's trying to explain to people that I've got to explain to how Chanhassen got smaller and we're going to pay 50 grand to do it. I mean it's just the economics of the whole thing and I've heard nothing but good things about Nordic Track and the whole operation but it's a situation that we're put into that we're being asked to do something at this point that we never would have thought of otherwise. Or were thinking. Councilman Johnson: One thing we would be doing is adding to the school district's tax base because right now that is city property. Do we pay property taxes on that? We're exempt? Councilwoman Dimler: No, but it's just going to be a parking lot correct? , Glen Pauls: Part of it yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: You're not going to get much revenue off of that. ' Glen Pauls: We have about 300 employees working there right now. We move out of other building, that's going to bring in another company of another 100,000 square foot here. Councilman Boyt: Are you in the tax increment district down there? ' Glen Pauls: Yeah. Councilman Boyt: So you're really contributing immediately to, except for maybe ' employees. Councilman Workman: I would be willing to give them that property for free if ' you would trade us the same size parcel of his and our park. Don Ashworth: We looked at that and they do have some parcels and they were literally across the street. Glen Pauls: The problem is, the parcel they have over there is that's owned by Nordic Track and the parcel over here we own personally. I guess we can make f ' some sort of deal there but I don't know what, would you want a piece to put buildings on there or just a public utility? What would you do with that piece of property? , Councilman Workman: It still would cost us money. Mayor Chmiel: We're still out storage and we still have to pay for the cost differences between the two. Councilman Johnson: It's more expensive to build on a vacant lot then attach it to an existing building. Councilman Boyt: So where are we going with this? Don Ashworth: Basically we have a 30 year old building that basically is depreciated out. You're going to have to consider some form of replacement sometime in the near future and you've got an offer to help the construction for LII 76 , ICity Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 I I a new facility that truly has a $100,000.00 value. I think again, maybe if we could meet, I don't care, maybe Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and maybe come back II with some solution that meets all concerns and wrap it up next Monday night. If in the meantime you made a decision that that's it, you can't wait that long, well I guess that's the way it is. ICouncilwoman Dimler: That's right. We can't be put under that sort of pressure. I Don Ashworth: If I hear the people, you'd like to work something out if you can. IMayor Chmiel: Yeah. If it's at all possible. That's right. Councilman Workman: Again, I think the issue is also larger. It's unfortunate I for the Pauls and what they've been placed in but we need to get together with Chaska because the deal was done before we even saw it with a piece of our property. I hate to be greedy and grabby but that's what I think we need to discuss. IDon Ashworth: Can we get 1 or 2 of their council members to sit in on that type of meeting? IICouncilman Workman: Sure. I think Dale was agreeable. Bob Lindahl could probably get up. it Councilman Boyt: The way you explain this, we have an offer that's greater than the appraised value of that property and to turn that offer down is chancey. I think we ought to accept the offer. ICouncilman Johnson: We'll never get $100,000.00 for that again. II Mayor Chmiel: I agree but we have to get the bottom dollar which is still the replacement. Councilman Workman: Can you give us another week? IIGlen Pauls: I guess if we can be somewhat assured we can get something worked out here, we could hold off a little bit. Like I said, we're going to start 1 grading. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we do what Don suggested. That we get a couple council II members to meet with him and sit down and come up with some kind of conclusion. If that's acceptable. Councilman Johnson: I move we table item 9 until next Monday night so staff has I time to work it out for, especially the winter cold storage needs because we've got to know exactly do we have the ability to store that equipment over the winter and where we're going to store all that equipment over the winter. That to me is the most critical. The $36,000.00 to $50,000.00 is, we're going to have to replace that building sooner or later and this seems to be the best time to do it. II II 77 City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 Glen Pauls: I was going to check into the Lake Regional Water building in Victoria. I guess Flouroware is going to be moving out of there once their building is complete. Flouroware's building is pretty near complete. That's about the same type of building you're in right now. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the land sale agreement for the southwest corner of Highway 41 and 82nd Street with Glen Pauls. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim r r r r r r r 78 1 II # ': 1 ';' ''' El . :. ED CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ? 'r II REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 IIChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, IBrian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth ISTAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner IPUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-- COMMERCIAL - FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 12 ACRE I OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNEF OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. IPublic Present: Name Address II Fred Hoisington Consultant Herb Bloomberg Bloomberg Companies John Rice Attorney for Bloomberg Companies I Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies Dr . Bonnett Veterinary Clinic Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Bill Brisley AMCON ITodd Kristoferson AMCON Jim Winkles Applicant Rick Martins Marcor Development I Jo Ann Olsen and Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad Icalled the public heating to order . Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson with Lotus Realty. I 'd first like to introduce the development team that are here. Some are still on their way I from other parts of the world but Rick Martins with Marcor Development is one of the partners in this . The Bloomberg Companies. Herb' s here with his attorney, John Rice is another partner in this particular program. Ar I then the construction and the design are being done by AMCON who you' re familiar with because they' re doing a number of buildings in town and here are Bill Brisley who is the architect who has been assigned to this and will address some of the issues that you have. And Todd Kristoferson who I is a project manager . If I may, the way I 'd like to follow through with what we have to do now is I 'd like to have , if this is okay with you Mr . Chairman, first have Bill kind of go over an overall view point of what he II sees as an architect and planning of this center and give you some in dept feeling. We'd like to hear from the public then, if there are some people here, and then we'd like to address the recommendations of the planning 1 department and then turn it over to you. Is that okay with you if we follow that procedure? So first of all I 'd like to introduce Bill Brisley II i t ll Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 20, 1989 - Page 2 II Bill . II Bill Brislev: Thank you very much. My name is Bill Brisley. I am the project architect for Market Square. I work for AMCON Corporation and e are the design/build contractor who will be the builder . The number of design makeovers on this project have been numerous to date but I belie the process has been a positive affect on the current design. Each change has been an aesthetic response to concerns voiced by several people on e staff and many people on the development team. What I have rendered fr all this testimony in terms of architecture for Market Square shopping center is that there is a unifying composition which has gone on before 'n Chanhassen and there should be an integration by any design which is ye t come. What I think might summarize this is an image of a town style whe e shops are on a main street, friendly to the pedestrian. Warm and inviting in it' s setting . A town style that is fresh and unique and yet clearly II embraces the past with it' s sensibilities of massing and architectural detail . A town style with a feeling of progressive values using current design ideas without falling into the trendy metaphores of the day. So feel very comfortable noting that because of the varied input and concert of the City of Chanhassen. Each of our design submissions have improved towards this goal . This has allowed us to focus on a venacular that wil not only be compatible with the community but be an asset to it' s futur development. I feel that this current design is the synthesis of all th varied stylistic concerns and yet is consistent and a cohesive solution to the important community issue. I also believe that the drawings and II renderings that sit before you now represent not only an attractive building that the people of Chanhassen will be proud of but an enhancement to the informative town style that is emerging in Chanhassen. Let me n describe the design. The building massing is organized to minimize the negative effects of a very long building with basically the same type o use the full length. Large anchor buildings will be 20 feet high and pulled forward. The shorter infill buildings between the larger buildin will be only 18 feet high and will be recessed back between 4 and 8 feet. The materials used on the larger builders will be cement plaster or stucco in varying shades of light to medium gray. The shorter infill buildings' will be sided with gray woodlap siding and have white trim boards all around . 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 an, really lend to the variety of the massing. For a unifying effect I have given all the buildings a 2 foot high warm medium gray rock face base pediment that extends up to 4 feet at the piers and the corners and runs around the full perimeter of the building . Also unifying the whole is continuous color of burgandy coping for the top corgal course at the eave. There will be step corbling at all the roof edges on the project. The length of the eave will be punctuated by slight notches over the piers 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 cannon balls center on the middle steps of the parapets. All piers will have a blue green ceramic tile medallion centered at 10 feet high. These medallion II I/ Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 3 I will continue on the back of the center at the same height and interval . At each pier you will see a burgandy goose necked decorative light fixture with it' s illumination focused downward . This same light fixture will als be found over each rear entry tenant door. The stucco building fronts wil ' 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 wil ' 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 . There is a ' distinct change from the facade you see in the renderings and line sketche and the one in the colored version that I ' ve passed around which I might d right now. The most developed version of the design is the one with 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 1 inch painted steel frame holding a medallion of similar ceramic tile found elsewhere on the wall . 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 wil be glowing from uplighting within. The effect creating sillouettes of the suspended medallions. The lowest portion of the diamond opening will stil 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 this front mechanical screen ' will be 9 ' 4" off the roof . I think it' s important that you look at these sketches to understand what we' re talking about. 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 gabled area in lieu of the diamond openings. Note the colored drawings . Real elevation at liquor store . Mechanical units on the lower retail roof will be kept forward in the front half of the building and will be screene by the 5 foot of parapet wall at the front . For the view from the rear , the mechanical units will be painted light gray and this is on the lower buildings. Will be painted light gray to match the back of the parapet walls to draw as little attention to them as possible. I have not extende the gabled roof as requested by the City for aesthetic reasons . Much will be lost if we are required to run the gabled roof the full depth of the buildings . The functional purpose of such a tube type roof would be suspect from any casual observer . There also would be a very clumsy part of the back wall where the sides of the gabled roof at an elevation of 24 feet would meet the back wall at 14 ' 8" . This 9 ' 4" drop would look awkward at best. I believe that the City' s interest lie in having a well composed and interesting roof line with interacting shapes and gables for the long distance views . This design meets that need very well . Are there any questions? any I Planning Commission Meeting I September 20, 1989 - Page 4 Conrad : Are there questions on what has been presented tonight versus a was in the kit? I 'm haying a tough time understanding exactly what' s changed . I see what you' ve handed out but it was hard to follow your description. You know what you' re talking about. I think it' s real difficult for us to visualize what you' re saying . , Bill Brisley: What changed from last time is a lot. What' s changed from what I was talking about which you see in those pictures is basically t s holes and my decision to not have them just a flat piece of stucco but actually open it up to let it be a lot more exciting . Let the structure show and have the opportunity for lightings at night. That is really t only difference . Conrad: So the diamond type? Bill Brisley: The diamond . That is the thing that' s different. And II that' s something that' s new to Jo Ann tonight too. Erhart : Is the diamond , can you do that from inside or that ' s just external appearance only? Bill Brisley: Just external . 1 Erhart: Is that going to have a glass in front? Bill Brisley: No . To purposely show the painted structure. Erhart: Will it be lighted inside? Bill Brisley: Yes . Erhart : So at night you' ll be able to see a light inside there? Bill Brisley: No. You won' t be able to see a light. What you' ll see is the same structulre. You' ll see the ribbing . I Erhart: No, but I mean it will be lighted inside so. . . Mechanical things are underneath those? Bill Brisley: Are underneath both of these things . Erhart: Oh, they' re inside these? Bill Brisley: That is a point I should make is that these are also canvas screened for the large building. 1 Erhart : Okay, and why did you change from what was on the big drawings to this? What was the reason for the change? The ones that we got versus your diamond . What was the purpose? Bill Brisley: Just to further articulate the building. Give it more originality. Give it more feeling to not be the same as the others . ' I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 5 Erhart : Okay, the square thing in the front . What is that? What is that materials that are in that? ' Bill Brisley: Ceramic tiles . Erhart: The thing right in the middle of the diamond? Bill Brisley: Yes . Erhart : Ceramic tile over structure steel? Bill Brisley: Yes . Erhart : The color? Bill Brisley: That teal green. Blue green . ' Conrad: From a design standpoint, Paul and Jo Ann, what were we talking about the last time this was in? Speak to me about what you see versus what we saw before. Improvements or? Krauss : We think architecturally the building ' s made a lot of progress . I ' ll let Jo Ann detail some of the changes that we saw from last time but we have a point of clarification. We were concerned that the building not have false Hollywood fronts from one side and then look like a brick box o cinderblock box from the TH 5 side which will be very visible. We came up with the idea then of asking that that roof feature be carried through sor of as a barrel vault to the back. It now appears as though there ' s a complimentary vault. Wherever there' s a vault on the front, there ' s a complimentary vault on the back so effectively if you' re looking at it to the north from TH 5, it will appear as though there is that vault up there ' We haven ' t seen a real perspective of how that works but that may get our concern. Erhart : Is there going to be a model available of this whole thing? You' re not planning on making a model? ' _Bill Brisley: We ' re not planning . . . Erhart: But there' s a diamon on the grocery store as well? ' Bill Brisley: No . They have a different design. This nis a clear elevation. . .but the grocery store has a very different oe . Erhart : Okay, so you' re just making 2 diamonds? Bill Brisley: Four . They' re on these larger anchor tenants outside of Super. Value. Super Value being one large anchor tenant and then we have four more. Drug store, hardward store. . . Erhart : Drug store , video , Lotus Body Shop. I Planning Commission Meeting ` II September - Page 6 I Krauss : Is the tile feature and the lighting effects that are produced this front going to be repeated on the back as well? Bill Brisley: Unfortunately I can' t do that on the back because it ' s to low. That ' s only possible because of the amount of parapets I have then. If I didn' t have the back. . .but the tile will be there in back. It will actually more like what the other design was. The back still looks like that. I Erhart : Was this original drawing , those were going to be false fronts? Krauss: Yes. I Erhart: And the mechanical was going to be right behind it? Olsen: They' re going to still try to hide some of the mechanical under this . . . Erhart : In the new one definitely. I Olsen: But even in the old one. Bill Brisley: There must have been a misunderstanding because I ' ve alwa_s planned it to go back. . . We did not plan them on the back though. . . I felt that it needed that . That the false front really was not very good looking in any application so I gave that some depth too. I 'm very plea with the way it' s turned out. Erhart : Is there anything else like this in the Twin Cities? I Bill Brisley: I don ' t think so. I mean there are a lot of . . .that are drawn from different things in different parts of the country but this i' not. . . Emmings : You talked about the mechanical units . During your presentati Something about them being colored to be less visible. Bill Brisley: That is on the lower roofs that don' t have as many gables' Emmings: Are they going to be screened someway? Bill Brisley: They are definitely screened . The front parapet is 5 fee, higher than the roof . Emmings : So they' re screened from the front . How about from TH 5? I Bill Brisley: Well from TH 5, I 'm not sure they' re much of an issue but form the back, any point which you can see it from the back, they will just painted a very light gray to match the parapet wall behind it so s from 78th , you could see it. They' ll blend into the back of the parapet that they' re. . . We' ll keep them forward in the building . In the front half so that their outline won' t. . . II 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 7 1 1 Emmings : It seems to me that whenever we ' ve done buildings we' ve always said that mechanical units have to be completely screened . Does this meet that? Whatever that means? 1 Olsen : As long as it' s not real visual . What we usually get then to have them totally screen are those wood panels which would look even worse . These , we told them before if they come up with something unique that will 1 serve the purpose. Emmings : Okay, so you' re satisfied with this? Olsen: Well I still haven' t really seen anything that shows what we' re looking at. 1 Emmings : Should there be something that, is that one of the things that you' re requesting? 1 Erhart : A color rendering of it? Olsen: The elevations to show. Emmings : So on those elevations the mechanical units should be present as opposed to what we' re. . . Olsen : To show how they' re going to be screened . Emmings: Okay. 1 Batzli : Did you request elevations from 78th and TH 5? Or from all elevations where you could see them? I don' t remember your wording on tha one. 1 Olsen: The specific condition was to show us from TH 5 and we were discussing from the west and south. Everything ' s going to be very visible ' Bill Brisley: We have quite a few views there already. I could add 5 or more to it. already. ' Olsen : But you don' t have anything from, do you have something from TH 5? Bill Brisley: That basically is the view from TH 5. It' s just zoomed in. ' If it would serve the purpose to push that way back so the drawing was very, very little on the page, then it would look like it would actually look like . 1 Olsen : So is the mechanical equipment on here and it wouldn ' t be seen at all? 1 Bill Brisley: It wouldn' t be seen at all . . . Olsen: Do you have one that' s showing from the rear with the rear of the 1 building looks like? 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 8 11 Bill Brisley: Not from the northwest. I Olsen : Do you have any rear buildings on here? Bill Brisley: No I didn' t because I haven' t, in this particular progra I have not developed the back. . .Really the detail comes from this strai t line elevation. back. . .Really Conrad : The awnings are fabric or metal? II Bill Brisley: The awnings are fabric . II Conrad : Lighted did you say? Bill Brisley: No. . . II Conrad : What ' s the lighting for the front of the building? Bill Brisley: It' s all individual . It' s really. . .off of these I individual . . . Batzli : Is the signage back lit? Is that what the revision is in here" Bill Brisley: Free standing individual with. . .not sillouette. . . Erhart : The diamonds are made of metal roof? II Bill Brisley: There' s a metal roof over the, when the gables are made t of metal . It' s standing seam metal . Erhart: What does it, the rear diamond. Okay, the back part of the diamond , what does it sit on or what does the bottom. . . 1 Bill Brisley: Most of the construction and the walls that this will frame into in the front and back is against an insultation stucco system. They roof itself, the standing seam roof will be. . . structured of tube steel these panels, or these standing seam metal panels will be laid on. . . 'Erhart: So it doesn' t really sit on a roof. It sits on a post in the rear? Bill Brisley: It sits on posts that you can ' t see because they' re on th inside of this stucco wall that' s articulated with the. . . It' s part of mechanical . You really won ' t be able to see it . Erhart: According to this picture you can see it. From this view you c1 see the posts . Bill Brisley: You mean the vertical? Horizontal? I Erhart: Yeah. You can see the posts that holds up the rear of the roof . Bill Brisley: I want that to show. II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 9 ' Erhart: Do you? Bill Brisley: Yes d That' s what holds the medallion in the ' middle . definitely. Erhart : No , I 'm talking about the post on the rear part right in there. ' Is that a post holding this roof up? Bill Brisley: No . That' s the wall . ' Erhart: So this just isn' t hanging out in space? Bill Brisley: It ' s not hanging out in space. But I do have the back ope ' quite a bit for air and mechanical also for aesthetic reasons for the lighting . I don' t want to get it so dark that you can ' t see out the sides of it . . . ' Conrad : How do I read the north elevation diagram where Market Square, Lawn and Sport is segmented here? Bill Brisley: That' s on a diagonal . On the site plan there' s a little roof that' s on a diagonal in the corner . That ' s what you' re looking at. Conrad : To the right of that , what is that? In here . Bill Brisley: That' s this section here of the low retail . To the left is ' more low retail . Conrad : So that ' s not really a north elevation? ' Bill Brisley: No it' s not. Erhart : Bill , do you have anything on here that shows what the veterinary building is going to look like? Bill Brisley: I don' t have anything that we ' ve rendered but you have a ,copy in your packet. . .submission . ' Erhart : Okay, so that ' s just a regular roof. Bill Brisley: That' s just a regular hip roof . Erhart : Why is that building separate from the rest of the shopping ' center? What' s the functional purpose of that? Bill Brisley: Do you mean separate in terms of design or separate in term of . . . Erhart : Separate building as opposed to having it incorporated within the shopping center . Bill Brisley: I can ' t really answer that . Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 10 II Brad Johnson : The concept that we' re working on is that the ownership II the center, what you see here, will be under one roof. Then the balance o the center will be, which could be here for example, will be different outlots. We haven' t had that experience here in town but this is prett_ standard on a lot of shopping centers like at Rainbow and places like t t where they have different ownership situations because they' re financed differently or they won' t finance. . . What you' ll find is that these retailers don' t mind renting except for one, he' s going to own it you s and this is going to be owned . Then other people would prefer to own it. Own their own property. To complete the development, given the absorpt ' n here, we have to have some ownership available because there isn' t enou rental demand to absorb the whole site. Okay? So we' ll break this up int different outlots . This may be just one large outlot sold off to somebo y and then you come back and go through this process for that specific building . The application you have, because Dr . Bonnett is here and ha done successfully in, how many veterinary clinics have you built so far? Dr . Bonnett : Five. I Brad Johnson : Five of them. All of which are the best veterinary clip s in the city. That particular building he wants to own and they approached me, and we could not a site in the city to build an individual building which people could own that small . They have large sites but no small sites . So what we' ve done is then provided for that ability up here because we believe there' s a market for it and it' s proving. We've got people already speaking for this . They' re just not ready to come forth with a plan yet so as part of your PUDf we' ll determine that this will exist . You probably see this on every shopping center and quite a . . . th' next 10 years. As you know this is the first time anybody' s done that but this is a pretty standard way of approaching it. Does that answer your question? ' Erhart : Yeah . I guess so . Brad Johnson: They just want to own it, that' s all . II Erhart : There' s no problem having a restaurant next to a veterinary II clinic? Brad Johnson: No . And that happens to be right across the street from h institutional . . . Everybody' s trying to be a little of retail now. Get high visibility. Banks are . Things like that . You have one right acr s from Southdale? Veterinary clinic? Dr . Bonnett : Southdale . There' s one right down here right across from lh Eden Prairie Center there. And there' s a restaurant right beside it . Brad Johnson : So that ' s pretty common. At least for the veterinarys i town, they all want to buy his site later on because he' s done suchJa g d job. His business is developing veterinary practices and then sell them off later on and there' s a big demand for that. It' s sort of like II franchise veterinary. . . II 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 11 ' Conrad : Any other questions of Bill at this time? ' Ellson : I just had one . It' s probably a dumb one but from here it looks like these step downs is a ramp and on the other things it look like it' s an actual step down . When you go from one level to the next. This is lik drawn in almost like a wheelchair ramp could be used or what have you. Ye ' is it truly more like a step like you see on here? Bill Brisley: The detail ' s really not shown in these drawings. What we d ' at the transition point is we have a few steps and a railing and then at that point we have, on the site plan it shows that we have a 1 in 20 ramp that goes from that high point at the transition , out and around and back ' down low where the stairs go to. I have a picture' s worth a thousand words . I ' ll show you a photograph of where this has been done at another center very successfully and it works real well . It will be a lot more heavily landscaped but it works well . The City' s also wanted access goin onto the sidewalk in many places and that is . . . Conrad: I 'm interested in the furthest part north. You really don' t have ' any kind of structure kind of leading the center off . Off of 78th. It ' s low unit. It's your restaurant or whatever and it seems like it would be good statement to make yet there ' s nothing there. Bill Brisley: That particular building is finished all the way around the same as if it were the front . There really isn ' t a back to that building . That is because of that position that it' s in. Which just kind of happens to be where that ' s where part of that retail fell and the first anchor was not. . .but I have not for one minute during this entire process thought there was a problem because it' s very soft . Very nice with detailed . . . start out with a bang or build up to a crescendo. . . ' Conrad : How many feet long is that one side that that leads into? Is tha 300 feet? Bill Brisley: Looking at the site plan , we have really. . . I don ' t really think it' s going to feel like a very long, straight building. There' s ' going to be a lot of shadow lines .very lot of different materials. A lot o different heights. It' s going to step down the whole site. It' s really quite varied . y 11 Conrad : What is the elevation, and maybe this is . From the north looking at the end of that building, where' s the elevation on what we' re looking at? Bill Brisley: I 'm not sure I follow you. ' Conrad: That would be the drive thru that ' s been proposed? Bill Brisley: Yes . It' s not drawn . . . ' Conrad: I don' t know if I agree with you because West 78th where all the traffic is and it seems like a way to get people in so I 'm not sure I agre Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 12 II with your perspective that we build up and have this crescendo later on., It' s, from my perspective, people are interested in something close and they see it and if it' s attractive it might entice somebody in. Batzli : But it's really the most heavily landscaped area too. That no face there. I don' t know. I agree . Initially when you first install th s that would be, I think a crucial elevation view to take a look at but I think in 5 to 10 years , hopefully this stuff takes off and it really II softens whatever you' re going to be looking at anyway. Conrad : I 'm curious about the backside of that unit because I don' t wa the backside to look like the backside of the rest of it. I really and l the way through, in talking to Brad, what we' re doing is backing up a majo shopping center to a road and it' s pretty, you soften it a great deal si we' ve been talking but still , it' s the back side of a building and there are no accesses through that I know of from the backside to the front si so it is definitely the back of a shopping center even though it' s a on major road so I 'm kind of concerned. Is that it? I Bill Brisley: This is it right here . Conrad : See, that ' s at sort of a major crossroad or a major visual area, If I were running a restaurant, I think I 'd want more, maybe there' s a restaurant buyer at this point in time but you' ve got great visibility there and why put a backside up against two roads? It shows on Montere_ and it shows on 78th. I don' t think that ' s what I would want if I were restaurant owner. I 'm not sure that that' s what I would want as a plannin commissioner to be honest . That part bothers me about the design right ' now. Other comments? It' s a public hearing so are there comments from anybody in the audience? I think Brad set this up. He wanted to present the overview of how it looks with Bill ' s assistance and then get any kin of feedback from anybody here. Is there any feedback specifically on wh heard so far? Batzli : Bill , before you wander away. On this site plan that you were showing us. It' s shown with all of the parking developed. Is the parki. on the east side still future parking? Bill Brisley: Yes it is. Those lines are still dotted. 1 Batzli : Oh, those are dotted on there? Bill Brisley: Yes . II Conrad : Brad , do you want to get into the next part of your? I Rick Martins: We' re going to respond to the staff report . We want to thank you and the staff for the manner in which we' ve been able to proce to this date. We've had a plan that we've certainly had some costs adde to and we' re working hard to make our numbers work to adjust our proform r and so on but we think that the way in which we work together with you ha been very good and we think that in the end the building and the site design that we have is a good one that will work well for the community II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 13 for the project . We want to have Brad come up and discuss some issues fro a leasing and marketing point of view and Bill come back and discuss some issues from an architectural point of view. Some of those already have. The leasing issues , in the end we' re building this building. We' ll start ' off about 65% pre-leased . We ' ll have the hardest 20, 000 square feet to lease so issues of circulation and access and signage and so on are very important to the ultimate success of this project so any cooperation or ' assistance you can give us certainly would be appreciated. If you want to mark this down, just to make it easy, we have gone through and we will giv you the points in the staff report that we concur with. Then Brad and Bil will come back and address the issues that we have some comment on. So ' starting with the back where it's summarized, there' s 1 through 25 I believe. Emmings: Are you on page 9 are you? Rick Martins : Starting on page 9 , right . Okay, we concur with number 1, ' 4, 5, 6, 8 , 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 , 16, 17, 18 , 19 , 20, 21, and 26. So with that I ' ll ask, I think Brad to come up and to speak to certain issues . Thank you. ' Brad Johnson: As Rick said , we' ve been working through this process with the committee of planners and we think that we 've been trying hard to fulfill the needs of the community and also try to match what we' ve tried ' to attempt to do with Town Square and some of the other projects that we have done here. The problem we' re having is this is a real big project. It' s not small in scale so it' s hard to make it finite. A couple of issue that will be always ongoing and I think one is that because the site inevitably backs onto TH 5, it' s impossible since we put the pond in, to put anything in between there and TH 5 and the railroad tracks and you probably would not place a building on that site to face the railroad tracks because that' s TH 5. The issues of screening and things like that , this is just a general thing , are tough to handle because we also have to figure out how to get circulation back there and loading and things like ' that. Because however people are choosing that site as tenants, such as Super Value, they' re choosing it because of visibility and the last thing think both the City, the tenants and the developer want to have happen in this design, is that from TH 5 this is an unattractive place to come to ' because from what we read, this will be the most attractive way to get people into our center . So I think when we talk about TH 5 visibility, we want to make it good. One of our problems is, it does rise 30-40 feet back there and it' s difficult , it' s just a different kind of a situation that you have to deal with but I think our interests are the same. Then Ladd , to address your questions about the cap on the north end . We don' t have a tenant yet for that particular location and if it was a restaurant, obviously it'd be all windows . See it would change. Right now we have no idea what that end will look like as far as a tendancy. We have some idea ' that we' ll deal with as we go through the process but until we get a tenan for that site, it' s difficult to design exactly what it ' s going to look like . It certainly is , as you say, an important part of the center . We just don' t know what the tenant is going to be. I Planning Commission Meeting 11 September 20, 1989 - Page 14 II Conrad : Brad , I just think it' s a missed opportunity. The way I see i right now, I don' t think you' re taking advantage of the opportunity. You' re designing it to kind of fit something . Brad Johnson: All I 'm saying is we have yet to have a tenant speak for that site . The restaurants want to be more in the center because it' s 1 expensive. They want bigger piece. There' s no parking there. We have stacking . We' ve already addressed . It ' s just an interesting problem w we' re going to address so I 'm just speaking that it' s not done in that yet. We' ll probably be back with a different concept inevitably because we' re going to have a tenant and maybe that tenant will want to make sur of that but right now we don' t have anybody. As far as vacation, let' s through the items. I 've got a certain selection of items that I 'm suppo e to deal with. One is the vacation of a portion of 78th Street for right-of-way purposes . I Emmings : Give us a number . Brad Johnson: Number 2. I 'm just going to go right down but of course IlD don' t have my crib sheet. Mine say Brad. Your ' s don' t say that. We woul prefer that we maintain that right-of-way and provide an easement to you for that rather than transfer it to the city. The reason for that is th that would count into our total size of our lot and it makes it easier us to meet the setback requirements and that type of thing. We would prefer to do it that way and we would request that we do. As far as Out A would be accessed . . . Erhart : Excuse me Brad but isn' t that the same reason that you wanted sidewalk easement? Brad Johnson : Yes . That' s right . Exactly right . Krauss: Should we respond to these things? II Conrad : Yeah . I Headla : Yeah, you looked like you wanted to say something . Krauss: Our concern with that is , the way we've proposed it, there' s gillh to be a second land on a public street that will serve this project and serve as a turn lane. It' s a public boulevard. It should be a public street and not privately maintained . One of the proposals they kicked around was, if it' s actually got a private easement over it , that they would plow snow on it and be responsible for it but it doesn' t really work well . It is a public street. It will be used by public traffic. It will accommodate the traffic that ' s not necessarily going to the center . Toll that extent we think that that should be a public boulevard. Whatever we don ' t need to accommodate that , we' ve stated that we' re willing to vacat . Erhart: Your reason for wanting an easement, to use the total land areaili calculations of coverage and so forth? Brad Johnson: Coverage. Sale. Whatever . II II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 15 Erhart : And that' s part of the PUD. You already exceed the coverage. Brad Johnson: Setback requirements . Erhart : You already exceed the coverage and we' re willing to give that as part of the PUD anyway. Conrad : I think setback is more of an issue . ' Erhart: Is there a problem with setbacks if you make that? Brad Johnson: It ' s just when you do a site, you like to have as much as you have and there' s a 25 foot setback requirement there. I 'm just saying ' that ' s our opinion. 79th Street is owned privately as an easement to the City and the City maintains it. This is done in the City quite a bit. I own the street and . . . Ellson : Is there any other portion of West 78th Street that ' s done this way? Olsen : Not that I know of . Brad Johnson : I 'm just saying , we' re just addressing and you may have concerns and I 'm not saying the staff is wrong. That' s our opinion. As far as Outlot A is concerned , only access internally. We can ' t, at this point agree in any way with that. The reason for that is we do not know who the tenant' s going to be there in the future. What type of tenant tha we' re going to have or owner of that site and secondly, that site is going to be owned independently of the center . It ' s going to be owned by the Bloomberg Companies and as part of their ownership, they want the right to be able to develop that as fully as they can and we feel that it can be accessed, at least by right-in/right-out only safely and we' re prepared to deliver you traffic reports and so forth to discuss that from a technical issue. Not tonight but we will hire a firm to come in and discuss that from a technical point . Can this be done or can it not be done and depending of the design people, that it can be done. ' Batzli : You say right-in/right-out on West 78th Street? Brad Johnson: And also on Market Blvd . . Now we' ll have to locate where that ' s going to be as again we ' re without a tenant . This prohibits us fro doing that at all . We just can' t have that happen at this point. Clayton would you like to address that issue? Clayton Johnson: John will talk about it later . Brad Johnson : Okay, because I think that' s a request that probably is quite unfair at this point. Certainly without any traffic studies or anything like that to base that decision on. So we just don ' t agree with that one. I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 16 II Krauss : In making that proposal , we base that on traffic safety concer There' s going to be a lot of turning movements into and out of that cen r as is. The closer you get to the corner , you' re going to interfere with traffic that' s turning, traffic that' s going straight. You' re going to have the merging movement. If there' s a right turn lane out to the nor , what if those people want to turn to the north? They' re going to have t merge across traffic in a short distance to the corner? Those properties will be, or that outlot will be independently owned but it is a part of �h overall PUD and should function as such. It was our perspective. It ' s o very good access on two sides. It has very good visibility all around and we felt that the additional access that ' s being proposed is hazardous . II Yeah, we could do additional design studies or have a traffic engineer ig that but we' ve seen enough of these studies ourselves to say that if a report said anything different, it would likely be suspect. Brad Johnson : Yeah and as I said, I think that ' s a technical issue whi the professionals can deal with. Item 7, the site plan shall be revised t remove the drive thru. We can ' t agree with the final statement is that the PUD contract will state that a drive thru will not be permitted in location. Now that' s an ideal site for a drive thru from the marketing point of view. We do agree that we should meet normal safety standards stacking and that type of thing but we do not feel that the PUD agreemen should simply state that there can be no drive thru on that end. It may have a different design that meets the people' s standards here but we can' t, at this point, limit ourselves . I 'd say every tenant who has loo at that center has an interest in that and it' s not a McDonalds or anyth like that. Probably some way of solving the problem of stacking. The planning group brought up, we just don ' t have a tenant there and we' d prefer just to come back and present our solution at the time we have a , tenant. So we' d like the development agreement to allow that subject to your approval but not to straight out say we can't do it. II Emmings : Who uses drive thrus other than McDonalds and banks? Brad Johnson: yo'igart stores. Pizza stores. They' re all pick-ups now. Dry cleaners . Everybody has a pick-up or a drive thru. Some are call aheads. You don' t drive. Like a pizza place, you hardly have stacking because you don ' t line up and order and then wait an hour for it to be prepared although some do . It' s becoming a big . Video stores now have drive thrus. You think about it. You come in and the place is closed and you want to drop it off . All those kinds of places . We don' t happen to have the tenants there and it' s a good location for that type of thing. The reason it' s a good location is you can get back out onto Monterey. rest of the center is just too deep to do that type of thing. So we' ve o a video store that ' s interested in coming to town and their first requirement is a drop off . Well that takes a drive thru if you think ab i, it but it' s just going to, a Mailbox requires a drive thru. Federal Express. Drive thru. All these kinds of things require drive thrus . II Conrad : Paul , was your concern stacking distance on this or were there other concerns? II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 17 Krauss : Mr . Chairman, there is quite obviously a traffic conflict if, every drive thru we' ve seen you get a reader board and then you get the pick up window. There' s different ways of massaging these things around but we don' t have a lot of guidance as to what' s being proposed there and we don ' t believe that there' s any room for a mistake there. Any kind of traffic that piles up, piles up in the main drive aisle of the center. By way of a compromise I supposed we'd be willing to review a site plan at 1 some time in the future that they might propose even if it' s an extremely minor type of pick up use . Consider allowing that specific use but we y asked for some resolution of this in the last few meetings and there hash' been any and we' re still quite concerned with it. Conrad: Tell me potentially on the west side, if they put a drive up window on the west side. On the northwest side rather than on the northeast side, is that a possibility? If the drive thru basically starte from off of Monterey versus coming in from 78th? Krauss : It could give you a longer stacking distance and help solve that. Conrad : It might be a possibility? I 'm not sure I like coming in off of 78th and going through a drive thru to your , going in. If there are cars exiting and there are cars going in , we' ve got the cars flip flopped on th wrong side so I 'm not sure that ' s the right place for a drive thru there . I could see it coming from entering off of Monterey like a typical flow would be maybe. Brad Johnson : You have to have your drive thru has to be on your left side. Car window side. Conrad : That ' s why you' ve got it there isn ' t it? Brad Johnson: Yeah. We think we could move the windows , I 'm just saying . Conrad : How could you do that though Brad? How could you have, so you' re basically saying that is a one way traffic? Brad Johnson : Yeah . That' s what it is . It ' s indicated to be one way. 11 All we' re saying is we think we can come back with some plans for you for that whole thing . We don' t happen to have the tenant currently. We have heard that we should remain within a reasonable stacking so it won' t be a Hardee ' s with a reader board and it won ' t be somebody probably that would , 11 it'd be more of a pick-up situation than somebody that we plan on stacking because you' re right , there' s not enough room. We' re just asking that you don' t put in a contract that we have with you that it' s prohibited . That' all and that' s what it says here. We realize that we could have a stackin problem and we've come up with some designs but we don' t know how the tenant is and until that happens , I think the agreement could have, we hay to come back for a plan review but . . . Conrad : Conceptually it' s a tough one to bite off Brad if you could solve that problem. I I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 18 Brad Johnson: If we can' t solve it, then we won' t do it because it won' be good for the tenant either . If a tenant' s going to do this , he' s go rent this building from us and invest $150 , 000. 00 in his business at a minimum because that' s just what it costs for those kinds of pick-up ty of businesses and he' s going to want to be successful and one things th wouldn' t make him successful is if people couldn' t get in there because f stacking . It' d make them angry. There' s plenty of other sites where they could go in town possibly to have drive thrus if they wanted to. So tha�' our opinion on that one . Moving right along , item 14. Relative to the 2 inch storm sewer along . Ellson: Weren' t you going to do 9? , Brad Johnson : I 'm not going to handle 9. Crib sheet . 72 inch storm se e along the south property. Two problems we have in here. We' re not sur want to pay for it but we' re not saying we won' t. We think it ' s needed . we'd like to have further discussions with that with the City staff and figure out how to pay for it if we need to . But we do not think that well should be required to have that installed before we start any construct on the site. There ' s got to be some other way of doing that. Or does tha mean we' ve got to go in and put the storm sewer in before we break group Dr . Bonnett for example' s ready to break ground tomorrow, or as soon as file the plat and that would hold him up on the outlot side so all we' re saying is there' s got to be some other way of assuring you that that will end up there if we' re going to pay for it. If you' re going to pay for i', you don' t have to worry about it but we think we should have further discussions on that. In other words , that was just thrown at us . We've always said we won' t pay for it. The City staff has always said we woul pay for that and this is new that we have to have it installed before w a permit. Krauss : As to who' s going to pay for it , we' re really not in the positi to argue one way or the other . The engineering department and our inpu has led us to believe that it would be the developer ' s obligation. Howeve that 's ultimately up to the City Council to decide with the development contract , or potentially the HRA if that ' s involved . As to the time of II installation for that pipe, it' s our understanding that without that pipe, that area is prone to become flooded . Whether it ' s a construction site r a building in place, it would flood out and that pipe is needed to avoid that. Hence it' s imperative and important that it be timed to coincide at least in advance of any kind of serious construction in that area. We c contact the engineer further and see if there' s some area of the site . veterinary clinic is quite a ways from there and possibly that could sta first but there is a definite conflict between the primary building and th pond. i Brad Johnson: Our only rebuttal to all that is , according to the engineering staff there 's sufficient ponding on the south side of the tracks to handle all water that' s ever going to happen around here as 1 as it can drain that way and we feel that we could constructing the cen r and that at the same time . That' s all we' re asking . Right Todd? They don't want to go out on a site where they get washed away either so we' just saying , for that to be installed first , let ' s say we' re going to s r I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Pagejq this in March or something like that . It may delay the start of the cente 2 to 3 months while we' re getting that put in there. That' s all . We'd just like to be able to pull the same permits the same day. Is that right? So I mean that' s all they plan on doing it. ' Batzli : Paul , is there any counter or rebuttal to that argument? What' s the problem with doing it all at the same time? rKrauss : Again, we understood there to be a conflict in that if there ' s a rain back there without that pipe, the ponding area, the defacto ponding area that results , occurs where the building is going to be built. Brad Johnson: Okay. What you' re saying is we've got to provide it during that brief week or f2 or 3 that they' re building that culvert. We have to ' have an alternate access poing of the water from the storm water . Krauss : Some temporary diking possibly. That may be something that could be worked out. Clayton Johnson : The problem as I see it is putting it as a requirement o the PUD, really the land could be just as it is today. Dr. Bonnett could be constructing his . . .property without that sewer being in and what we ' re objecting to is it being a requirement of the PUD. The economics of who' s going to pay for it is an issue that has to be resolved within the HRA and ' our company because it was a part of the condemnation proceeding on that land . What we' re objecting to is making it a requirement of the PUD. Brad Johnson: So we'd like to work that out and I think we can. That' s partly working out with the engineering department and everybody else . So we'd like to have you just say simply that we' re working that out or defer it to the City Council . Maybe between now and the City Council maybe we can get a solution to that. Item 22 and 23 deal with signage. Probably one of the most critical issues in marketing this whole site to a tenant will be it' s signage. Both it' s visbility and it' s availability. One of ' the reasons that people are now desiring to be in neighborhood malls like this rather than enclosed malls simply is name identification and that the feel that they can control their own future versus being inside. And I ' ve ,always said this but if you watch the advent of the mall at TH 4 and TH 5, slowly but surely they' re getting signs outside. Originally there were no signs. You go down and look at the Target store and all the signs down at the Prairie Village Mall , the big one , slowly but surely they' re getting signs outside and the reason simply is, the business fails . If a company such as Dominoes wants to advertise it' s name and spend a million or 2 million dollars a year , it wants it' s sign on the building it' s going to b on. That ' s the key to it ' s success . Therefore we have to be as sensitive to signage as possible. So we'd like to say this , that we would like to have, by the way I think the signage on this from a look point of view wil look just like Town Square, which everybody seems to like. It' s been very identified . That' s the look. We' d like to be able to put signs on the en caps. We have the ability of having 2 signs on every building and we'd like to have 3 signs for the tenants on the end caps . End caps . In other ' words , the ends. We have 2 ends . We have a north end and an east end so Super Value would face the tracks , face Market Square and face into the I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 20 center . Whatever tenant that we have at the end of the north side woul have the ability to put one on 78th, one on Monterey which would encour e them to make it look better because it would look like part of his store, and then also face the center . That would be our request relative to t t Batzli : Wouldn' t that draw people in from Monterey from the wrong way? Brad Johnson: They'd just be able to see that it's there. That 's the AI idea. The hardware store is going to have a sign in the back. All tho people along the back will have signs. One of the benefits of being on Monterey is that we' ll probably spend more time taking better care of t back and making it look better because it' s going to be a street someday with other the retail traffic which will the center will do. One time had planned on putting a road into the center , through the center of the center but it turned out from a hazardous traffic point of view, it'd b because people would be coming in from where you don' t think they' re coming in from. Right between two buildings. So that is our request there. I don't know if the staff has any comment on that. ' Krauss : Signage is always a tough issue to grapple with in multiple tenan buildings. We understand the need to advertise and believe it' s a vali purpose . We' ve worked some on the sign plan for this center . The firs monument signs that we were asked to review here were the size of Naegel billboards . The current monument signage is quite attractive and reasonably sized. We' re looking at monument signage that does have som tenant boards on there. We requested that it not be changeable copy because that frankly looks tacky. The major tenants will have that additional signage out on the boulevard . As far as the building signag goes, they' re going to have signs front and back. Their advertising in directions . Now Super Value wants the third direction. This is really a subjective comment. We thought that that was a bit much since who' s it going to appeal to if it' s just facing the east? You ' re going to see t Super Value logo as you come up from the south. It' s on the back of th building . From the front of the building , you see the Super Value logo an then you' ll see the shopping center monument sign that also says Super Value on it. We felt that was a bit excessive but again , that is a subjective judgment . Brad Johnson : I think if you look at most of the Burger King ' s or whoever ' s on a corner , or if you go down and look at the bank at TH 4 an TH 5, you' ll see that it' s signed on 3 sides because that ' s logical in t a particular case because it was visible from TH 5 in two locations. We' going to have two high traffic areas here. We' re going to have one , Ma Square is going to be heavily trafficed so that' s a good place for a sign . 78th is going to be heavily trafficed so we think facing 78th would be good place for a sign as well as the front or back and that ' s what requesting . I think if you go look around , you' ll see a lot of situations where on these kinds of corners they' ve allowed attractively the signs . They don' t look that bad and the signs aren ' t that big . , Batzli : So are you saying that your screening of your landscaping 'isn' t going to be good enough to hide any of these buildings? 11 ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 21 I ' Brad Johnson: The screening of the landscaping was designed not to hide the signs . Batzli : So once you put the sign up there , it ' s going to be very visible intentionally? Brad Johnson: It has to be or we won ' t get a tenant . I mean this is the name of the game. Batzli : But on the ends is what I 'm talking about . Brad Johnson: The Super Value end it' s going to be a relatively small sign. It' s a big wall so I mean that ' s a large building over there an don the other end, we still haven' t got the design. We don't know who the I tenant is . I heard Ladd say that he 'd like to see a nicer looking end cap. I think we can accomplish that as part of dealing with this drive thru also. So we just don' t want that included in the development agreement 11 and/or in the PUD agreement. Finally on the monument sign, we believe that the center should have 2 monument signs but we also have to deal with a tenant who will potentially or owner, who will have a 70,000 square foot corner . And according to your ordinances , if somebody is located on a corner of two streets, they' re allowed two monuments. One on each street. We'd like to ask for at least one . We anticipate that that the person going on that site would like a monument on the site. It could be low 11 profile. Would probably match what you have seen there. Not the high ones but probably how high would you say Bill? 15 feet. And the tenants that would approach this are the potential owners of that land have indicated I they'd be interested in the site if there' s a monument. This is strictly marketing again. We have to deal with that and that ' s what they feel makes them successful so those are the issues that we'd like to have you address in your discussion. That' s our feeling at the present time and as I said, Bloomberg ' s later on will address both the monuments once again and access to those lots because that' s what they' re going to end up owning in this particular agreement. So Bill , do you want to address the rest of the issues? Todd Kristoferson : Thank you. My name is Todd Kristoferson and I 'm Amcon Corporation. The last few items on the list which have not been addressed are starting with number 9 . Parking lot lighting . Item 9 says that the parking lot lights shall be reduced to 25 feet in height and they shall match the design of the downtown lighting. What we would like to do with 1 the parking lot lights is to match the lighting that has been done in the rest of the private developments in the downtown area . We would not like to be restricted to matching the decorative lights which the City has 11 placed in their boulevards. The reasons for this are, we would like to have a lighting plan that is efficient both in the initial cost and also in energy useage and in order to do that on a lot of this size, we need to get ' fewer light standards. Get the lights up in the air 35 feet approximately and direct the light down at the parking lot. The lights which the City j has used are lower and are more decorative in nature and direct light outward from the light fixture. So for with reason we would like to Use ' the down showbox style lighting that the rest of the private developments have used. style I Planning Commission Meeting I September 20, 1989 - Page 22 I Emmings: I 've got a question there. It ' s my understanding that this II change was from 30 to 25 and now you just mentioned 35. Am I wrong about that? Olsen: We understood it to be 30 feet and we want them down to 25 . II Todd Kristoferson: We have not done a final lighting design of the site. II Super Value will do their own lighting design and will specify their own lighting fixtures and standards. We will work with them to make sure that what they want to do is consistent with what is approved under the PUD. II Batzli : What does 30 foot PML mean? Todd Kristoferson : Pole mounted light . II Batzli : You haven' t done a final study yet? Todd Kristoferson: Super Value has not done theirs . Normally Super 1 Value' s light poles are 40 feet and sometimes 45 feet. Batzli : So the plan that we have doesn' t really reflect what we may or mal not do? Ellson : Well we can tell them what. II Conrad: What would be maximum. Ellson: What other buildings are you saying you want them to conform with II You said other ones that are on West 78th Street or downtown? Headla : Brian asked a question. I want to hear the answer to that . I Batzli : Why do we have a 30 foot PML here if that' s not what' s going to happen? Is this just conceptual? I Todd Kristoferson: Based on our own preliminary design, that was our intent. Discussions we've had with Super Value, they would like to see higher light poles for that parking lot . They' re not interested in having " more light poles than are necessary. They would rather see fewer light poles and better lights and higher lights . The intent is to direct the light downwards so as you' re looking at the site, you' re not seeing light II in your eyes. The light is shining downwards . In order to the get the light that we need in that parking lot with the boulevard lights, we would have to have them 30 or 40 feet apart which would be. . . II Batzli : I understand your reasoning. I understand what you' re saying. My frustration is growing as there are more and more changes from what we' re looking at than what you guys want to do tonight that the staff hasn' t had ' a chance to look at and I mean you' re just hitting us with stuff left and right here. II II ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 23 1 Todd Kristoferson : The other two issues which were on here which have not been addressed by item are 24 and 25. Item 24 was addressed by Bill when he explained the building architecture and I don' t think I want to get into that. If you 'd like to discuss that item, I guess I 'd like to have Bill present that. He ' s already gone through that . On item 25 , Brad addressed the screening issue and the problem that 25 presents is that it puts the developer in a position where we really don ' t know if we have an answer whether we've satisfied this until the building is up and you can drive by TH 5 and you can see what you see . We know that because TH 5 when it crosses the bridge is higher than the building, that we will not be able to screen the building from all points of TH 5 with vegetation. It cannot be done. Conrad : Talk to me about your comment on 25 again. I 'm real lost on what you' re saying versus what staff is saying. Try to condense it. Todd Kristoferson : Okay. Staff has asked for sight line sections that show the building from TH 5. At certain points of TH 5, and that is as you get further west and go up the bridge, we know that we cannot screen the building from there. You are going to see the top of the building. The mechanical units will be screened and we' ll have the architectural features on the back that dress up the building but we cannot screen the building from TH 5. 1 Batzli : Paul , what are you looking for as far as those sight lines? Krauss: Well , it' s been a big question for us . We think that that TH 5 exposure is real important . We acknowledge it ' s the back of the building and we acknowledge that the intent here is not to screen the entire back of the building . The intent is to screen those more , if you will , obnoxious aspects of the back of the building and then as far as the roof line, the peaks above there and the signage that they want to hang back there , we ' re more than happy for that to be visible. We just want to make sure that you can' t see the trash compactors and the loading docks and the trash storage bins and the trucks that are parked back there. The only way we can be assured of that is for a perspective. This is why we' ve asked for it in the few previous meetings . • 1 Batzli : So really you' re not even as concerned with solely the roof so much as you' re looking for what does the sight line which would include the berm, include some of the screenings and things like that from the ground perspective but from the ground up? Krauss : Yes . Olsen : We have not yet really seen what the rear of the building is going to look like. Even from the west side either and we' re uncomfortable without seeing that . 1 Conrad : How do you do that based on the different elevations from TH 5? Do you take the worse possible scenario? The highest elevation? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 24 Krauss : What you do as you illustrated, you get the topographic layout of TH 5 and then you put yourself in the perspective of a car driving by looking at this site and they scale out the distance. Conrad: The highest elevation off of TH 5? 1 Krauss : Right . Ellson: And you said that you'd be happy if it didn' t show the storage area and loading docks and things like that but his contention is that the majority of the roof would not be hidden. That was part of your thing here? Krauss : Yes . The intent was not to hide the roof. The intent was not to hide the sign ban that they' re going to have on the back. I Ellson : That ' s what it says here . The sections will verify that the majority of the roof will be hidden and that' s what I think he' s concerned " about is that , if you want my roof to be hidden. . . Krauss: That' s a probably misleading. That' s not the intent . Olsen : Just the roof equipment . Krauss : The earlier discussion we had about the rear of the roof is to make that area more attractive because it is going to be visible. Jim Winkles : Mr . Chairman. My name is Jim Winkles . We don' t disagree at all with the intent. It' s the subjective nature of the wording. We fully ' agree that the loading areas , those unsightly areas will be screened . The rooftop equipment will be screened. We have no problem with that. It' s just simply that wording . How it was phrased that concerns us . We have no disagreement otherwise with the intent from what we' re hearing tonight at all . I think much , if I could just go back and just cover , maybe summarize a few things. The items that we' ve talked about up here, they' re nothing 11 new that ' s come up in the sense of, the only thing that I can truly say that is different which really is a changing function of some of the dynamics of the whole project is the light pole size . We had shown 30 . Staff had wanted 25 but the issue of the height is not new at all . We' ve II been talking to staff about that for months . The change to 35 is simply reflects what Super Value wants which is a tenant. It' s a changing. It' s a dynamic situation. You try to work with everything but the issue of height at all is not new. Not are any of the other 25 issues on this Usti! here. They' re all items that we' ve talked about and talked about . We simply have some concerns about some of the things and what we've talked t staff about . We' re trying to work those things through as I think you can see and appreciate. But I don' t want to leave the impression here that because we may have some concerns or that we' re trying to let you know about those concerns, that we' re necessarily bringing up new things tonigh because we' re not . Everything has been I think well documented by Jo Ann that we' ve had a number of meetings and have been talking about a number of different issues and tried to cooperate with all these different things. II It ' s just that sometimes we can only do what we can do and what the I ` Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 25 11 marketplace will let us do out there. Conrad: Good . Thanks . Any other. comments? 11 John Rice: My name is John Rice. I 'm the Attorney for Bloomberg Companies . I want to address just a couple of the issues here. First is the recommendation number 3 on page 9 regarding the access to Outlot A. By way of prefacing what the position of Bloommberg Companies is on this particular issue. Bloomberg Companies is going to be a partner in the development of the shopping center. but Bloomberg Companies will retain the ownership of Outlot A so we have a somewhat different interest in the developing partnership for the center itself as far as Outlot A is concerned. It' s to those concerns that I want to speak. We think that it is very important that both from 78th Street and from Market Blvd . there be access to Outlot A. At this time we do not know what will be the ultimate use of Outlot A. We do not know whether it will be a one user development in that Outlot A or whether there might be a multiple use. Two separate business establishments and what the particular type of business establishment it would be. Whether it would be a restaurant. Whether it would be whatever else would go in there. And to establish now at this time that in fact there shall be no access from either 78th or to Market Blvd . , would have a severe impact on, first on the value of that property. Number 2, it would severely impact the kind of development that would be able to be put in there and making it accessible and acceptable to a 11 prospective owner or tenant of a building or a business that' s put in there. And that applies to both 78th Street and to Market Blvd . . There ' s always traffic problems and there' s always the problem when you get close to an intersection. They' re not problems that can ' t be solved and with the blending of a right turn lane, I 'm not a traffic expert so I 'm not going to tell you how to do it but at the same time while we may not have a design here for you to say that this will work with the traffic studies to back it up, neither I think have we seen that there are traffic studies that conclusively show that it can' t be done. The staff has made known their opinions and recommendations but we do disagree with it . Both from the standpoint of practicality and secondly from the economic use of the property that it will ultimately be put to. As far as on West 78th Street, the right-in and right-out is satisfactory but we think that on Market Blvd. there is a lot of space there along Market Blvd. and on that there should be an access both in and out in both directions . Just one of the other problems that it comes to when you provide that there shall only be this access is I would refer you to paragraph 26 which requires cross easements over the parking lot, presumably and the shopping center property for the benefit of Lot 2 and for the benefit of Outlot A. Well now you see you' re getting into questions of encumbrances on title. That you' re going to have questions about whether or not tenants and the owner of the shopping center and the mortagee of the shopping center is going to accept those kinds of easements and the same problem for any ultimate occupant of Outlot A and the mortagee on that . Whether or not those kinds of ' encumbrances on the access to the property, it ' s a very important factor . Not just from the economics but from the standpoint of title and from the standpoint of it' s acceptance by mortagees that they can have, be assured ' of access to the property and that should not be encumbered and set in stone now but rather that access be specifically provided for . As far as 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 26 the signing , Brad ' s addressed those questions . That ' s clearly, that site Outlot A with one or two businesses on there. Each of those businesses is not going to be dependent upon Market Square. They are going to want to be at least separately identified and to make the kind of investment that would be required . They will require signage and pylons and that restriction we also feel should not be written into the PUD at this time but rather that each business that would be located on Outlot A would have the right to a separate appropriately provided for within the Code pylon I sign. Thank you. Conrad : Other comments? Anybody else? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . 1 Conrad: Well we all have our opinions on probably 26 or 27 points here. Emmings : Well we don' t have to talk about the ones they agree on. t Conrad: Well, we may but that would be an easy way to rule out. I don' t know if we could give an overview, each of us , of our opinions . Batzli : Then go back through it point by point? Conrad : Then go back to it point by point. Batzli : Let' s do that. Conrad : The point by point basically forces us into the specifics. It doesn' t get into architecture. It doesn' t get into some other things so that ' s why I wanted to get into an overview first. See if anybody has other issues to talk about other than the 26 specifics in the staff report . So Tim, I think I ' ll start down at your end . Without getting into the specifics of the 26 issues , are there other impressions that y like to , other issues that you'd like to discuss? you'd Erhart: In general? Conrad : In general that has not been brought up in the staff recommendations . Erhart : That has not been brought up. Okay, well the one issue you 11 brought up isn' t in the staff and I think that is the retail store on the north end . I agree 100% with you Ladd that somehow that has to be a 3 sided, has to have 3 front sides in that we could not allow what they would consider the northwest portion of that to be a rear facing West 78th Street. Now I don' t know how we do it . Whether we have to put something ' in that we have to review the site plan at the time that' s developed just hoping that they have a tenant by the time they build the building but somehow I think we really have to force that one. I think it ' s that ` important. The other thing that' s not considered in the items . What is the landscaping of that pond just south of the railroad track? What ' s the I .Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 27 I ' intent there of the City? Is that City property? Is that going to be trees on there? Evergreen trees? Deciduous or what? Olsen : It ' s going to have a fountain . ' Erhart: The pond itself but I 'm thinking of the shoreline. It' s not been settled yet or? ' Krauss : We' re not aware. We' ll dig that information out for you. ' Erhart: Yeah. I mean there' s some potential for additional screening from TH 5. It' s simply on what you do with that north shoreline on that pond isn' t it or is that lower? ' Krauss : It ' s lower and it ' s being excavated out further so yeah , I wouldn' t think that it offers that much. It probably could use something to enhance it by itself but it' s not going to over screen it. 1 Erhart: Okay. The other thing not issued in the thing is how does one walk from the hotel? If someone wants to get , they' re in the hotel and they want to go over to the grocery store, how do they get there? Are there sidewalks provided? they Olsen: There will be sidewalks also along here. ' Erhart : Along the east side right now? Olsen: Well they will be on both sides . Erhart : Outlot A isn ' t going to have anything until it' s developed is that right? Olsen : No . Erhart : You' re requiring a sidewalk at this time all along the west side of Market Blvd .? Okay. That answers that question. ' Conrad : As long as you brought that up Tim. Jo Ann, could you go through the pedestrian traffic flow on this site because I don' t see how you get to the building from certain sidewalks . Olsen : There will be sidewalks on West 78th Street and Market Blvd . . There will be a sidewalk through here. You can walk all along here. There' s awnings . Conrad : And how do you get , right where your pointer was , how do you get from that store out to the West 78th? And is there a sidwalk there? Olsen : No . Conrad : So you take the street? Okay. Take me down to the Super Value store and the sidewalk ends at the Super Value. Right there' s the sidewalk there. How do we get in from that sidewalk into the Super Value store . Is I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 28 II there a sidewalk getting in? II Olsen : No . There are no internal sidewalks . Batzli : I 'm sorry. I missed something I think. Did you say that there ill a sidewalk going down Market Blvd . the entire length there? Olsen: Right. I Batzli : Including the outlot? Olsen: Right . . .and there is one on the east side also. I Headla : You say there is? Olsen: Yes . That ' s in the plan but they' re not there right now. Erhart: Where does it show that that sidewalk goes along the whole west il side of Market Blvd .? Is that in one of the conditions? Olsen: It' s our understanding that it. . . Erhart : Maybe it ought to be added as a condition. I 'm not sure that it II was clear . yIt was shown on one of the drawings . Emmings : It ' s on the site plan . II Conrad: Not that I can see . II Ellson: I see a sidewalk here. . .but it doesn ' t up here. Erhart: Well there' s one for the Planning Commission. I Olsen : That ' s something we can make clear . Erhart: If you could clarify that as a condition. Brian, were you, was II that Ladd or Brian suggesting that there should be a sidewalk going north out of that last retail center north up to West 78th Street also? II Batzli : Ladd said that . Conrad: I think it makes sense. 1 Erhart : Yeah . It seems to . Batzli : It also makes sense from Super Value going east . I Conrd: Anything else in general Tim? Batzli : I think that ' s all I had in general? I Emmings: The only thing I have I guess that would be general comments tha aren' t specific ones are number one, I 'm not sure that all of the II ' Planning Commission Meeting September_ 20, 1989 - Page 29 I ' discussion wound up showing up as conditions . I think I 've spotted at least 1 or 2 that didn' t make it in and that worries me, so I think that should be checked before it gets to the City Council . Ellson: Do you have an example? Emmings: Yeah . I didn' t find , that ' s a specific and we can get into that . The one that comes to mind right away is the, under Outlot A it said the construction of buildings on Outlot A will be compatible with shopping center building and veterinary clinic and I didn't see that in the conditions . Krauss : It should be. Emmings : And I think we should change the wording on that too but that ' s specific. My other general comment is that a lot of the comments I heard , this whole parcel is being treated as a PUD, which is appropriate but it seems that whenever that doesn' t fit the purposes of the owners of Outlot A, they all of a sudden want to treat it as a separate parcel and I 'm having a real hard time with that. It' s either in or it' s out. It isn' t both so I think it makes it hard to talk about but from my part, I look at it as part of the whole piece and I 'm going to continue to look at it that way but I don ' t think that ' s a big problem because I think we can put all of these burdens such as the monument. Saying that they can' t have an 1 additional sign out there or they can ' t have access . If it' s going to create a burden for someone, I think it' s appropriate that it creates a burden for them and if they cam come back later and show us good reasons why we should change it, we can always change it. But other than that, I guess my other comments have to do with. Oh another one I noticed that that 12 foot width you want it increased? Olsen : I just saw that . Emmings : That isn ' t in there as a recommendation either or as a condition and I don't know what you want it to be. You said you wanted it wider but you didn' t say what? Olsen : And that ' s something that we' re still working on . I hadn' t gotten confirmation. Emmings: Again , that' s specific . I don ' t have anything else . Ellson: The first thing I thought when I saw this whole plan reminds me of the Eden Prairie Rainbow center lot or what have you with the anchor of that. I 'm a little uncomfortable with the, I mean there' s so much of this and I 'm trying to picture it . Some of these step downs . It ' s not going to make you feel like it' s one long runway or that type of thing and I 'm not sure I 'm real comfortable that that ' s being accomplished . The canvas awnings I agree look nice but I ' ve got a concern that who upkeeps something like that as it goes on? Is it individual shop owners? Is it the developer who owns that whole strip? I know that those sort of things look pretty tacky as they get worn out from the sun and things like that also and maybe there' s benefit to some of these plastics and metals that they I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 30 use you know for awnings because of how nice they look for years and years I share the same concern with that corner of the two streets. If I felt that it was really being bermed and totally done up with landscape, I guess it wouldn' t bother me to leave it like this but if it' s going to be something that ' s pretty visible and they obviously want a sign on all threll sides there, that means they' re going to try to make it visible, then I like the idea that the back looks almost like a front or better than the typical backs of the other buildings . The only other thing that I had which has probably nothing to do with this permit is I was wondering if, sounded like they were saying that two-thirds of it is already leased ahead of time and obviously the people who are listed in here must be those lessees. And the first thought that I had was here we've got a hardware I store right around the corner and now we' re bringing in a new hardware store. I 'm wondering is it the same hardware store that' s just moving? Okay. Because I 'd hate to think that we' re running somebody out of town I you know that' s been there a while. I guess I thought the same with the Lawn and Sport . I didn' t know if it was the same person and stuff like that so that makes me feel a little better . Thanks . That' s it . I Batzli : I had some questions that didn' t relate to the additions so I guess I ' ll ask them now and tell me if I 'm getting too specific. First of all , just from a planning perspective Paul , will there ever be a frontage road along TH 5? Krauss : Behind where this shopping center is? I Batzli : Yes . Krauss : No . I Batzli : So if there is a frontage road along TH 5, there won ' t be on this stretch where downtown Chanhassen sits? Okay. I 'm also I guess concerned about the line of sight from Monterey and West 78th Street and that building and I kind of convinced myself that it wasn' t a big deal until they said the landscaping would purposefully be done so that it made this building very visible and the signs attached thereto so it does concern me n now. I almost had myself convinced that it wasn ' t going to be that big of a deal but I think it is important . The design of that upper corner there. The northwest corner . I was going to ask just in case Dave forgot whether this building would require any additional fire fighting equipment . You can answer that . One of the questions though was who actually maintains the outlot until it' s developed? I noted on one of the drawings somewhere it said that they' re just going to plant it in grass seed . This is going to be a fairly nice corner and the question is , who normally has the burden of maintaining that to make it look somewhat nice and obviously they' re going to come up here and tell us well , this is a real nice shopping center . We' re going to want it to look nice but how does the City actually control that or don' t they? Krauss : Our mechanism is to always go after the owner of the property, whoever that happens to be. Batzli : Well the ordinance says it can ' t get over 2 feet high. , 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 31 Krauss : Also , all the parties are signing a PUD agreement that would require the maintenance of the property in the condition to which you approve it so whoever is the parties that sign that agreement would have the liability for maintaining the property. Batzli : This was probably HRA or something but it seemed that there was an ' easement for a road going into the center of the project from the west . There was some sort of line on one of our plans that there was a road coming in from the west that lines up with the road about halfway up . Does the City currently have an easement or something platted there that there' s actually a road going in there that ' s being vacated? Olsen: The road right-of-way. . . Batzli : There is a road right-of-way there now? Brad Johnson: Sanitary sewer . Olsen : We have an easement . ' Batzli : Pica Drive or something? Olsen : We ' ve got a 60 foot easement right here in the middle of the site . ' Batzli : What ' s happening to that in this whole process? Olsen : Well we' re going to vacate , we ' re going to maintain the easements over what is going to remain there for sewer and water . The rest will be vacated if it' s not necessary for utility easements . Batzli : Then this excess right-of-way to be dedicated to the project on the northern half. Is that actually a part of, you really don' t want to give up that entire excess right-of-way? Is that what you ' re talking about when you' re talking about constructing the 12 foot? Olsen: Right. We' re not going to give up as much as we' re showing . 11 Batzli : But that ' s currently being counted on their plan as their property and for purposes of impervious surface and everything else. And one last general question. Fred had a memo in here talking about a lot of different 1 concerns. Are all of his concerns addressed in your conditions or at least if not in your conditions , at least satisfied in your own mind? ' Fred Hoisington: Brian, yes . The second memo that I have in there is the one that ' s the more current . The first one was when we were going through this in a very general fashion. Some of those are worded differently but all of those issues have been addressed and I 'm satisfied that all those have been met satisfactorily. Batzli : Okay. I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 32 Headla : I don' t like to get into detail . I think we've got too much detail tonight but I 've got a real detailed question for Brad. When I bring my two sick horses over to that vet, where do I park the trailer? Brad Johnson: Ask the vet . ' Dr . Bonnett : You' re not getting a horse in there. It ' s small animals . Headla: I kind of assumed that but I just wanted to bring that point out. II I like the project . The way it' s going . I think it' s got a lot of promise. You've got a lot of problems with the way the whole thing is being handled . Both on your side and the staff ' s side. I do not like to II hear the excuse that it' s a large project, therefore that justifies a lot of loose ends . That' s a bunch of baloney. That is the worse thinking you could ever do. You people are crowded right now with all your time. Now II you've got a major project coming in. Now you want more loose ends that you' re going to try to control . Something' s going to suffer or else you' re going to add more money to the tax roll . You' ve got to be able to manage II it. The only way you' re going to manage it is to have a. . .plan. You've got a. . . 26 points and a lot of stuff slipped through here. I think you've got to go back. Take a look at it again and see how you really want to manage it. I think Jim had , he talked about signing and he talked about a plan. How you could do it. I think that' s the way we should approach thi thing . Give us a plan . How you would approach the signage. He' s going to gear towards this but if you look at it, you can agree on the policy that they want to go, you really don' t care about a lot of that detail . You' ve II nail down what' s his intent. Traffic flow's another one. I think you can mail them down on traffic flow. I don' t care if there' s a diamond in the tile there now. I 'd rather see what is their intent . What are the really going to do. How can you measure them. You don' t want to have someone go over there 5 days a week, 40 hours a week. You want to have somebody go over and monitor once in a while to see what they' re doing . You want to adminstrate that thing and that' s all . Then I didn' t like it where you people laid those three surprises on the staff . I think when you come in here, they've got to know exactly what you ' re going to say. Now you' ve got them thinking , well should it be this or that. Did you see all three of these sketches beforehand? No. That' s another thing. I think you people have got to be aware of what ' s coming in and I think you have every right to insist on that. They tell you what they' re going to presen and they don' t cover anything else. That ' s all I have. Conrad: I think my comments have come out before. A quick one. On canva awnings. When they do rip. The canvas is softening up the front of the building . What kind of control do we have, and if we don' t have it, I think it ' s to the tenant' s benefit to keep it there but do we have control II over the architecture that has been presented Paul? Let' s say it deteriorates to a degree . What control do we have later on? Let' s say in 5 years when the canvas may be is not holding on. Krauss : That' s a little bit of a tough question. Basically the building that you approve is the one that' s supposed to be built and the one that' s supposed to be maintained and if they want to deviate from that , then they' re going to have to get some authorization to do that. Likewise, if ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 33 ' the building ' s not maintained in a manner that' s consistent with the appearance that was approved, we theoretically have the right to go back to them and require that it be brought up to standard . That ' s not an easy process but it is available. Conrad : Are you comfortable with canvas awnings? 1 Krauss: I 'm not an architect. The newer awnings that I 've seen have weathered fairly well . ' Conrad : Fred , you' re comfortable with canvas as a material out there that' s going to last and survive? Fred Hoisington : I 'm very comfortable with canvas . I have no difficulty t with it but I think you have a legitimate concern as far as what happens or what if because I think there are some possibilities for damage as there would be to anything and perhaps there is a need to have some sort of requirement or control that assures you will be. . .but canvas is fine. I have no difficult with that at all . ' Conrad : Okay, walk through us from Monterey. We have cut off all circulation, pedestrians from Monterey and I need some reaction to that. In other words, the designers , the architects , the builders , developers , they really don' t want anybody coming in from this new, the area to the west . We have no walk throughs . You' ve got to walk around so we' re saying pedestrian traffic doesn' t count. Basically saying we' re really not on a street over there folks . The street shouldn' t be there . That should be an ' alley. I need some feedback. I don' t want to put walkways through something that ' s not going to be used . I have no interest in forcing the developer ' s to do something that' s absolutely never going to be taken advantage of . Yet I need some reaction from staff to tell me or Fred , yourself or anybody with some insight. Given the fact that that may develop into retail commercial over there, are we locking , have we done the wrong, are we missing the boat by not having a walk through? I don' t know. ' Krauss : In the times that I ' ve sat in on these meetings , that was not an active consideration on our part and possibly it could have entered into that but as we think about it , what occurs to the west is likely to be oriented to the north. That street is a fairly minor street and will probably always remain that . This is hypothetical situations but it ' s likely that what goes in there would be oriented to the north which would I have a sidewalk ultimately that extends back around into the shopping center . ' Conrad : A quick comment however . There' s parking back there . I assume that's going to be employee parking. Sometimes parking can, and I guess the other comment would be, I assume that traffic stalls are enough to service the area. Yet on the other hand, sometimes that back side can add 1 to parking for shoppers or even across the street could add to parking so we've basically saying this is it. Maxed out as to what we've got there . I would be very concerned with , if we were close to the , if we didn' t 'think ' we had enough stalls and obviously we ' re meeting code so we do, but even in the future if we were thinking that this center ' s going to be so powerful , Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 34 so well used that we' re short or deficient on parking, I guess I 'd have toll be concerned with or I 'd be real interested in access to the west . Krauss : There' s a lot of good valid comments in what you just mentioned . The idea of reserving those rear stalls for employee parking is something that we could do by stipulation, i .e. that they put in the lease agreement that that is where their employees will park freeing up everything in the front for customers . I 've worked on a number of shopping centers , some of which have had tunnels or hallways forced into them and the experience wasn' t really that good . They tend to be rather minimal affairs . No matter you do to try to make it appealing, they' re long, rather dark tubes that aren' t very appealing and are downright frightening to use after hours. As a tool to force the use of parking to the rear of the building, I don' t believe they've been very effective. They do have the added complication that they lose leaseable square footage of course to do that but from a design standpoint, I don' t think they work very well . Conrad: I probably agree with you. I drift back to the only concern that I end up with is we really have closed down any kind of pedestrian traffic coming from anywhere in the Monterey side so it' s really a dead end. That whole street is dead end and maybe not well designed . Definitely not well designed. But the street' s there. The building backs up. That' s the way I it is . The design on the northerly building , I think that' s my biggest , well real briefly. Sidewalks have to connect to the sidewalk in the shopping center so from West 78th and from out on Market, there' s got to beil a connecting sidewalk into the inner loop. Flat out. That has to be. ThdO other thing that has been brought up before is just how we look on the north side. I think that it' s got to be a three sided, if they want three signs , I think we need to have a three sided building out there. I think that just makes sense and I don' t think that' s a hardship. I think that' s taking advantage of an opportunity on 78th. I think it ' s just in everybody' s best interest to make that a three sided building and I think that' s important . Those are my general comments . Now let' s get back into the specifics if we can and try to finish this off before the evening' s over . I ' ll just go through them one at a time and I ' ll assume, just I because the applicant didn' t have a problem with a point doesn' t mean we don' t but I ' ll go through them. Anybody concerned with 1? Point number 2. Tim, we' ll start with you again. Any brief, and hopefully we can keep these brief because City Council ' s going to go through the same thing as w� are so I think we' ve surfaced some issues and some thoughts and thoughts have been surfaced by the applicant so I don' t know how much we want to beat this to death.by Erhart : I agree with Steve. It seems like the applicant is trying to maintain every inch of flexibility he can get on this thing andyI think in I almost , not in the spirit of the cooperation of that I think we need . Unless I measure wrong, I don' t think vacating the portion of 78th Street that staff requests is going to have any affect on coverage or setbacks . Now maybe I measured it wrong and so I don' t think it' s an unreasonable request to have that approach to who owns West 78th Street . Conrad: Is there any disagreement with Tim' s opinion on that? Anything? Okay, Dave I 'm going to flip down to your end on point number 3 . Outlot A I 'Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 35 will only be accessed internally. What' s your comment on point 3? Headla: I want to see 3 and 26 going into negotiations between the two parties . I don' t think they' re that far apart . The words that are on the ' paper are far apart but as I hear both sides, I think they can sit down and negotiate that out without a hard spot. ' Conrad: Brian, speak to me on that one. Do you agree? Do you want to make it a negotiable item? ' Batzli : I think that the City staff is saying that they don' t believe it can be done. The developer is putting himself into this corner by choosing this particular layout and corner of the lot to be an outlot and as part of the PUD plan, I kind of tend to agree with Steve a little bit in that it' s ' almost like they' re reserving this prime spot but they don ' t want to be backed into a corner and yet they' re the ones that reserved that particular site . I don ' t know, if they would have an exit , it seems to me that it would have to be on Market because just by looking at it it seems there' s no way they can put an entrance onto West 78th right next to the corner there with an acceleration lane behind them as they' re turning right. So it seems to me that yeah , it should be negotiable with the staff but I don' t see how far they' re really going to get with it. Emmings : My point is , that corner has the two major accesses to the whole property on each side of it. I can' t see they' ll have any problems servicing it from those major intersections and I don ' t see how it ' s going to work. And they say, well we don't know what' s going to go in there and I guess they have to maintain flexibility and I see it just the other way around. Everything is negotiable and for now I think we should leave it the way it is and if later on they can come in and convince everybody that Iit should be changed, it can be changed . everybody Conrad : Just practically speaking , they' re telling you something that ' s really true. If they had an access and that property is going to be more marketable . I think they' re not lying about that. If they had an access , and again, it depends on who they put in there but more than likely they' re going to have an easier time selling it if they can show closer access . Direct access . Emmings : What kind of distance do you have from the corner to the entrance on let' s say the West 78th Street side? That side. Olsen : The corner from West 78th Street? Emmings: Yeah. From West 78th and Market down to the entrance into the shopping center . Bill Brisley: 320. ' Emmings : How close to a corner can you have an entrance. Olsen: We like to keep it at 300 feet . Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 36 Emmings : Okay. So where in the hell are they going to put it? I think ' for now, see things are up in the air because they don' t know what' s going to go in there . They know as a general matter that anybody' s going to want an entrance but I think we should leave it this way for now and just leave the burden on them to come back and prove it otherwise . I Conrad: What do you think Tim? Erhart : I think it sure is more marketable. It ' s also more marketable if I they didn' t have to pay taxes either so. I can think of three other shopping centers like that in the west metro area and none of them have access on that, direct access from the streets on that corner . One's a gas station I 'm thinking of. One' s a restaurant and one' s a Berger Brothers in Bloomington and they all access from the internal so I prefer to leave it as staff has requested and let them come back later if they have a specifi development that, they can come back and show traffic studies that they ca have direct access , we can look at it at that time. Everything ' s negotiable. i Conrad : Okay. Batzli : You don' t really have a consensus there. You' re the deciding I consensus I think. Conrad : No , no , no . Dave says he thinks there' s some negotiation. I think the rest of you are pretty close together on leaving it the way it is. I personally believe that , I 'd like to have, I would prefer to have an internal access to that site. I could be swayed to, if somebody showed me a site plan that just made a whole lot of sense, I could be swayed . Emmings: We all could. Erhart : We all could be but do that at the time. I Conrad: Point number 4. Any comment on the 8 foot wide bituminous? I Emmings : Now is that what we've been calling the sidewalk? Conrad: Yeah. That' s the northerly. I Olsen : No , that ' s on West 78th Street . Headla: I didn' t hear you . I Olsen : That ' s the one on West 78th Street but there ' s going . . . I Emmings: This says 8 foot wide bituminous path along West 78th Street. Is that what we' ve been calling the sidewalk up there? I just want to be sure. I assumed that but I didn' t know. I Olsen : It needs to be bituminous to be consistent with the rest of the West 78th Street. I I ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 37 I Emmings: What about the one that goes down Market? Olsen: That one is just going to be a concrete sidewalk but this might be a good condition to stick. ' Emmings : But I wonder . We want this to be bituminous so it' s consistent then we' re making this one concrete? Olsen : Well this one is an 8 foot wide . This one is going to be combining with the bike path and will be going out to West 78th Street and Powers Blvd . . It ' s all part of that downtown redevelopment plan . They already kind of had it. Emmings: So that' s already kind of on there. ' Olsen: Decided. I can confirm what' s what but. . . ' Emmings : Well 4 would probably be a good place to put in a sidewalk along Market and sidewalks coming in from West 78th into the center and from Market into the grocery store . Headla: Have we used easements other places or is this the first time? Olsen: For sidewalks, yes we' ve used easements . We almost always use easements . Headla : It ' s almost always an easement huh? Olsen: Yes. A trail easement . Conrad : Any comments on 5 and 6? Batzli : Can we back up to 4 one second? Conrad : Back to 4. Batzli : The financial sureties and construction plans . Is that for all ' the public improvements? Olsen : That was just in reference to the sidewalks . Batzli : That doesn' t include the storm sewer they' re putting in or anything? Olsen : Well there will be a development contract as part of the whole thing but I just pointed out in that one condition to show that. . . Batzli : Can ' t we just make that last sentence a separate one for all improvements , public improvements that they' re going to do to the project? Olsen : Yes . Batzli : I 'm done. I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 38 II Conrad : 5 and 6? Anything? I Headla : On 6, why didn' t you also put in about the grocery store? You had the one condition in 1 year about the truck exit from going the wrong way. ' Olsen: Well now it' s a two way street back there. Headla: Pardon? II Olsen : It' s a two way street back there now so that one concern has been addressed. Headla : I 'm looking on your memo dated August 31st, item 10. The grocery store loading docks are designed so that the semi trailers will exit going ' the wrong way on a one way street . Olsen: Right. It' s now a two way street. II Krauss : The plan was changed . Headla: It was changed? Oh, that' s my point. I Conrad : Point number 7? Batzli : I have a proposal . Get rid of the second sentence and say, any II drive thru at any location on the site shall require proper review and approval including city staff approval . In other words, we ' re saying that it' s not an absolute no but if they put one in, it' s got to go through the ' proper approval cycle process . Krauss : Would that mean a site plan approval in front of Planning II Commission and Council? Conrad : Yeah. 1 Erhart : And I agree. The best thing to do is just take it off this plan so it doesn' t imply that it' s approved. Conrad : I think that ' s a good way to handle that. Point 8. Any comments II on 8? 9? The 25 foot parking lot lights. Tim, start at your end . Erhart : On this one I ' ll agree with the developer . I just don' t really 11 care. I think there' s something to say when you' re trying to develop. We have a street downtown that the lights , they' re designed for a specific aesthetic appeal . They certainly are inefficient and when you ' re trying t do a parking lot like this , I guess without a specific architectural design that we apply to all parking lots downtown, which I don' t think we have, I don' t know why we would pick this one out and say that you have to match the existing street lights . And obviously the higher , the more efficient it is so I guess I don' t have a problem with whatever they come up with . Conrad: Any reaction to Tim' s comments? I 11 11 ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 39 1 Emmings : Yes . I feel like we' re being real arbitrary here and I 'd like to know what the reason is , what are we supposed to be taking into account when we try and decide whether it should be 25 , 30 or 35? I just don' t know. How am I supposed to think about that? Why does the City want 25? Erhart: Let me at the same time ask the question I had . Is there a plan ' for other parking lots downtown that they have specific lighting requirements that they have to meet? Olsen : Right . We are pursuing having the same sort of lighting for the Colonial Square parking lot where Kenny' s is . They' re pursuing to have that same sort of lighting installed there. Also with Retail West we've been trying to work where even the City would pay the difference in cost to ' replace the parking lights that are there with that. So it is , we are trying to pursue that , make it more consistent. It' s not we' re just pointing out this area . We do understand it' s an increased cost and I think that Paul would agree that we would be happy with something that would be similar that would also suit their needs and we can leave it open that they will provide us with a design and we could bring that back for your approval . It ' s really hard to say. Erhart: I guess what I 'm saying is, if there' s a plan, an overall plan for parking lot lighting in the whole city, then that ' s fine . Then we' ll work with these just like we'd work with everyone else but if we' re just picking out these , then I don' t think it' s fair to do that. Fred Hoisington: Tim, part of the problem is there is sort of a concept that we had always envisioned for these parking lots and we had hoped they would be consistent in the most part with the lighting for downtown. Those lights are expensive. They are low level . They have to be closer together but this shopping center doesn ' t necessarily lend itself to that . However , I think we might be able to achieve a little bit of both here. The higher efficiency lighting is what they' re looking for . What Super Value wants . ' Higher security lighting as well . Perhaps there' s some way we can address a little bit of low level and then still get maximize the efficiency at that modest cost but be consistent with downtown. The only way we can do that is to work with them and come back to you with something . I don' t ' think we can approve anything here tonight. Clayton Johnson : There ' s some confusion as to what downtown lighting is . The street lights we take exception to. The lighting that' s currently used in the Dinner Theater parking lot and Retail West is acceptable and was acceptable up until Super Value came up with some new criteria . Fred Hoisington: We can ' t quite figure out why but Clayton is right. We've had a concept but we haven' t always been consistent in applying it. Emmings : How high are those lights? You don' t know. Jim Winkles: The lights in Retail West , or Town Square and the Dinner Theater are at least 30 feet high if not 35 feet high. Now I guess we don' t have any problem with that kind of lights and maybe to compromise i Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 40 with something that there is I think a pattern of lights on the street and there' s also a pattern of lights off the street being developed right downtown. Off the street we have a higher light with a different kind of a shape which is consistent with both the Dinner Theater and Town Square. That' s the type that we want within the parking lot and maybe the II compromise is that we look at something on the street and on Market Blvd . coming down to be consistent with the street policy that seems to be the lower level and the different type fixtures . We don' t have a problem with that. What we do have a problem with is the inefficiency of these low lights in a parking lot where we want it well lit and efficiently lit for the interior of the space which is again, along 78th we have the street ' lights and then you get into the parking lots . The Dinner Theater parking lot and Town Square and you' ve got the other over story type of lights there. Emmings : I guess my reaction is that what they' re proposing sounds reasonable. What they' re proposing sounds reasonable. If the parking lot lighting is consistent with what we have in the Dinner Theater and other off street areas in the downtown, I wouldn' t have a problem with that. It' sounds like a compromise can be reached on that . Headla: I hear words but I don ' t know what they' re proposing. Put it dowl in writing and let them work it out with the staff. Conrad: Anything on 10, 11, 12 , 13, 14? The developer had a problem with ll the timing of construction. Seemingly it ' s something that could be worked out with staff . Batzli : How about as a last sentence , timing of installation of this linell must be approved by City engineering prior to the issuance of any building permits . any Conrad : Sounds pretty good . Emmings: Take out the last sentence that' s there now? Batzli : Yeah . And replace it with timing of installation of this line must be approved by City engineering prior to issuing of any building permits . Headla : On the first one on page 6 under drainage C-l. That plans that continue to illustrate installation by the city are in error. I didn' t get, if you gave me prints , I didn' t see them. What are you talking about? Where is that used? Olsen : On the civil plan , page 2. It says 72 inch storm structure ' designed and constructed by city. Headla : Okay, that' s on these drawings here? So you should put that in here to remove that? Is that correct? Olsen : Yeah . We' re essentially saying that the city is not agreeing that we will be the ones . . . city I • ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 41 ' Headla : Okay, but that sentence didn' t get into any of your conditions . Batzli : Isn' t it in 14? 1 Emmings : 14 says that the developer ' s responsbile for it. That' s what I thought. ' Headla : So we approve that and then we have something contradictory on the prints . ' Olsen : But is says the plans should be modified to note that the storm sewer . . . Headla : Pardon? Olsen : 14 states that the plans should be modified to note that the storm sewer where it is the responsibilty of the developer . ' Headla : Are you satisfied with that Brian? Batzli : Yeah. I was satisfied with that. I was wondering about, are they going to be requiring skimmers or anything on the storm sewer runoff? We had a lot of gradings . Headla : That ' s a good point. Olsen : It also has to go through Watershed District approval and I 'm sure as a part of those plans, skimmers will be provided. I don' t know that we' ve seen the detailed plans and specs yet . Batzli : Would this normally be the, I guess I think back to like Rosemount ' or whatever where they had the big development and we talked about skimmers and that kind of thing in the site plan and I just didn' t see them here so I just brought it up. I don' t know if we need them or not but I 'd at least like someone to look at it . Conrad : Anything else on that? 15? 16? 17? 18? 19? Batzli : Do we normally say something about the height of the trees that we' re requiring or anything or the size or do we just want to say we want evergreens? ' Olsen : The ordinance requires a minimum of 6 foot high evergreen . If you want larger ones . ' Batzli : I don' t think they'd let me require 70 foot evergreens . Headla: Did you notice that word deciduous has frequent into the vocabulary? I 'm pleased . Conrad: 21? 22? Needing signs on three sides . I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 42 II Headla : Make 22 and 23 , make up a plan and say this is how we plan on I doing it. Conrad : No, they specifically Dave, I ' ll guarantee you, those people who move into those end units want 3 signs . I Headla : Fine . Put it in the plan . This is what we want . Then you come to the City. I Conrad : I 'm telling you right now they want 3 signs . Headla: And I 'm saying fine. So they want them. Now let' s see what I they' re going to do for the other stores . Conrad: They don't want the other stores to have 3 signs. The stores I inbetween, they' re satisfied with the ordinance. The stores on the end they don' t like the ordinance so the question is , do we make an exception? Steve, I ' ll start with you. I Emmings : It just seems real compelling to me as probably a matter of common sense that if you've got 3 sides of exposure, you 'd want 3 signs . I 'd go with that . I Conrad : Is there any difference of opinion? Batzli : With my 70 foot pine tree, they' re going to block the third side. ' Erhart : I guess I 'd like to see us tie those 3 sides to special aesthetic ' considerations on those two end stores . I have no problem with the end signs but I think in exchange for that we ought to get special consideration on the aesthetics on the two ends . Conrad : I totally agree . What does this do to our sign ordinance? I I agree with I think it' s important to make Super Value visible from 3 sides . I think it' s important that the end unit on the north is visible and signell on 3 sides . That' s different than what our sign ordinance says they can do . What does this do to our sign ordinance? Olsen: It' s a PUD. I Conrad : So it doesn ' t bother the sign ordinance at all? Okay. John Rice: Mr. Chairman. I should have been sharp enough to notice this I before . I hate to interrupt your deliberations but you' ve got Outlot A included in paragraph 22. Again, use of Outlot A has been far different II than any use and any signage that goes on a shopping center just is not applicable and Outlot A should not be included there. So that needs to be strikers. Emmings : My comment on that would be the same as I made before . We ' re I requiring architecturally it has to be compatible and again they' re not showing us anything specific and I think we should have everything . This isn' t like it' s a subdivision and an outlot. This is being called an II ' ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 43 ' outlot but it' s part of the PUD and I think we should leave the same requirements on anything that goes on that lot until they come in and show us why that' s the wrong thing to do. It should be included . ' Headla: What did you say about it being a PUD and the sign ordinance doesn' t. . . Olsen : The fact that it ' s a PUD really gives you the ability to do what you want with this. We use the other guidelines of the ordinance as guidelines but. Conrad : When you allow a variance Dave, my concern was when you allow a variance it basically says that that ordinance no longer stands. That was the point of my discussion but staff is saying because this is a PUD, we ' can slip those sign ordinance requirements and not set a precedent for other sign requests . Headla : But with the smaller stores though, we' re still going to make them conform to the ordinance? Conrad : Yes . Headla: Alright. Conrad : So on 22, as I read it, the only thing that , we' re leaving that point as is other than allowing 3 signs on each, on the north and the southeast stores . Erhart : Can we insert in there in exchange for . . . Ellson: Aesthetic assureties or something . Erhart: I guess it ' s aesthetic consideration. Additional over what ' s been shown on the plan here. ' Emmings: But if the building is built before the tenant comes in, they' re not going to go back and reconstruct the building . What have you got in mind? ' Erhart : They could just take the risk. Batzli : They' re not going to change the Super Value store. I mean that' s a done deal . ' Erhart : Okay, but on the north one, they could take the chance and make that northwest side, make it front. Make a gamble if you forced it. Put windows there and awnings. Emmings: I think the idea is a good one . I just don ' t know how to do it. Ellson: Well they can think of something . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 44 Conrad : I really do have overall design concerns with the ends of this building. It hasn' t come out yet. There's nothing on paper so basically' I 've just talked about it and there' s nothing . I don' t know but maybe we' ll come back to this point. Emmings : In 22, that sentence that starts out the covenants . What does I that mean? Does that mean this condition? Batzli : The sentence preceeding, they have to submit covenants . Olsen: I should have said sign covenants. Not signed covenants . Batzli : Those are going to be submitted for staff approval correct? Can we insert that? The applicant will submit for staff approval signed covenants? Emmings : Okay. The first time the word the covenants is used it comes before where they have to submit the covenants. I see. That' s where I go screwed up. Now you say the applicant will submit sign covenants which regulate type, size and location of wall signage but can it be anything? What does it have to comply with? Olsen : Essentially what we've been working with them is they have submitted something like that saying what the size of all the individuals will be and how much of that wall area will be taken up and those are the I things that we want to see now in writing . Emmings : But they don' t have to just submit them. They have to submit them for approval and it doesn' t say that. Batzli : There ' s an echo in here . I just said that . Emmings : Oh you did? I 'm sorry. Batzli : That are submitted for staff approval . ' Conrad: Just because you said it. Batzli : Well apparently it didn' t get on his copy. ' Conrad: Number 23. The monuments. Brian? Batzli : Well at 10: 30 I 'm inclined to say let Outlot A have a monument . II I 'm not sure what the intent is to not give them a monument personally. Is this another thing where we' re looking at another district and saying this 'll other district is our guideline and there' s only two monuments allowed? Olsen : No because we ' re considering this whole site as one PUD. I guess we want control because in that development, that outlot can come in and have two other separate pylon signs . They could come in very large pylon signs . Conrad : The size of the monuments Jo Ann are what? 11 ` Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 45 I ' Olsen: They' re proposing about 41 square feet or so. That' s just the sign area . Conrad : 5 x 8 . Not very big. Olsen : That' s just the sign area . The monument is larger . Krauss: The structure is quite a bit larger . Olsen : And again, using the sign ordinance as a guidance, you can go up to 80 square feet sign face. Erhart : And how high in the air can this be? ' Olsen: 20 feet. ' Conrad : You know we' re not talking about a huge. From my perspective this is not huge. We've got a big parcel of property. It ' s all retail . Emmings : I would think you'd want to have one but what it ' s going to look like and where it' s going to go, I think we'd want to. Erhart : I just can ' t imagine having two of the pylons . Emmings: Oh, no pylons . Erhart : On the same side . Conrad : That' s a lot of space up there. Between Monterey and Market , that' s hundreds of feet. And we' re talking about putting, they' re talking about putting up a sign that ' s a little bit bigger than, it will go in the air a lot higher but the sign would be 5 x 8 . ' Erhart : I guess I wouldn' t have a problem with it if it was on the ground but now, gee up 20 feet in the air too. ' Conrad : Steve, what do you want to do? Emmings: My notion would be to do the same thing that we' re doing with everything else. We' ll look at it when they come back with a plan. Conrad: Tim, you agree with that? ' Ellson : I can live with that . Conrad: Brian? ' Batzli : Yeah , I ' ll agree with that . Conrad: Dave? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 46 Headla : My position' s the same. I want to see a print for all the signag included these. Clayton Johnson : I think it comes back to the whole concept of the PUD an our position on the access also is that we thought the concept of a PUD is that we had to come back with specific plans for Outlot A and had we known that the staff recommendation was going to bar any entrance on Outlot A, we would have come and negotiated a plan with the staff that had access to Outlot A. The same thing is true with the pylon signs. Had we known that ' the staff recommendation was going to be no pylon signs , we would have tried, we would have tried to come up with an agreement as to what we have there but the problem is we don ' t know what the use of Outlot A is going t be and the only thing we object to is the language, no pylon sign. We kno we' re going to have to come back and get sign approval on whatever goes there. The only thing we object to is the comment no access . We understand we have to come back and negotiate and get approval for access . That I think summarizes our position. Ellson: Well we' ll have record of our minutes about our negotiated ' positions. I don' t think we' ll have reason to totally forget . Erhart : The real problem is, when you come back for Outlot A, you can interpret whether you' re coming back as part of the original PUD or you' re coming back as a new development where you apply the ordinance to the new development. There is no interpretation? ' Emmings: No way. Erhart : It can ' t be interpretted that way? ' Krauss: You'd be coming back in for a site plan approval under that PUD. Erhart : So then what the developer is saying that we' re just over amplifying. He says we' re over amplifying with these words what in fact the requirements axe for him and if that ' s what it is , what difference doell it make then? We can always , on any of these issues, the developer can come back with a specific site plan for Outlot A and we can approve it if it makes sense. Even if these conditions are in here, we can approve it a the time. Can ' t we? Clayton Johnson : The burden is really on us . If you say no access . Emmings: You bet. really ' Erhart : Well it is anyway. In either case it is . ' Emmings: That' s appropriate. Clayton Johnson: Well but then we should have negotiated that early on. In other words, the language that no access , then we start all over . Emmings: Maybe you should have but . ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 47 1 Jim Winkles : If I could , I think the real difference here is that people change and boards change and we may all be sitting in this room having an idea that we all have a good understanding of what ' s going to happen but the simple fact is that staff can change, and God knows there' s been a lot of staff changes here in the last year . I 've had a number of different planners that I 've talked to in the last year alone. Things can change and I think all we' re trying to say is , rather than leave that to chance. If ' it specifically says there will be none. There shall be no. There shall be no access . If y not sitting up here in this board , whether it' s 3 or you' re months from now oit' s 10 years from now, that next board' s going to come here and they' re going to look at that language and that language specifically says there shall be none. There shall be no. Emmings : There are verbatim minutes of our record and your comments that ' you just made and all the ones that we've made here tonight that we' re willing to look at something for that in the future , will be available. Jim Winkles : I can understand what you' re saying . Could there then be some language just saying to that effect? I think everybody understands it. Why don ' t we just say that? That there shall be the ability to review things as something is submitted for Outlot A. I think we' re all saying the same things. Emmings : I think we' re more worried about giving you false hopes that ' you' re going to get to be able to treat this lot as if it' s an individual lot for the future . Most of the time people are coming back and saying hey you led us to believe we 'd be able to do something. So we' re telling you right now the door is locked and you 'd better come up with something that ' s ' going to make us want to unlock it if you want to develop that piece of property because you included it in the PUD. ' Jim Winkles : Conversely I think, and I understand what you' re saying. I don' t disagree . I think we' re all talking about the same thing . In terms of the marketing, if you go out and market it to somebody and say, well you ' have to come in for approval and they can say I understand that but they can also say but, your condition says you shall not and they guy' s going to say, why should I waste my time when they' ve already made a� decision . It ' s one thing if we say we ' ve got to come in and you have to go through the ' process . You may not get it. You may get it but you have to come in and prove it. You can at least entice somebody to go through that effort to do that. I guess what I 'm saying is we' re all saying the same thing . Why ' don' t we just say that and then there is no, the Minutes obviously are verbatim. Minutes on the other hand , a resolution speaks a lot louder than just minutes . ' Krauss : I guess I 'm a little concerned . The PUD is a contract . Developers understand contracts . We understand contracts . The language that we proposed , whether you go with it or not , the language was intentional . It' s supposed to spell out things clearly. We feel quite strongly about the access . We think it ' s a bad idea but that ultimately is up to you decide. In terms of the signage, if you wanted to hold out hopes ' or define what they should be allowed , possibly you could say it ' s entitled to one sign or two signs or whatever , subject to site plan approval with 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 48 the plan for the building . But it is a contract and it is a binding II document and that' s one of the advantages of PUD's to the City. You know what you' re buying . You' ve got some very defined limits . A couple of times we had asked for some definition for what might go on the outlot and they' re not in the position to give it so in lacking that we said fine. Well we've define it in very broad brush terms what we find unacceptable and then you use the latitude that ' s left to design around that. But again, it is a contract. It was intended to serve as such . ' Conrad : Yeah , it 's sort of a package. When you sign off, saying this is what we agree to. I 'm real sensitive to having another pylon out there or signage. I don' t know that it' s needed but on the other hand , I personalld wouldn' t exclude it at all . I don't know. Whoever makes the motion. I think the applicant is right . They' re hearing the words that we look at it but they' re not confident we' re going to be around and that' s a valid perspective. Point number 24 . Roof sections . Anybody any comments on that? Anybody Emmings : You already know that the roof section. ' Ellson: This has already been provided in other words . Emmings : Yeah , are you satisfied that that' s been done at this point? Could we strike that one? Olsen : We' ll want to look at it a little closer but I think it looks . . . I Krauss : It looks like they made a lot of progress . We need some more documentation to be comfortable that it' s completed . Emmings: Okay. So let ' s leave it in . Conrad : Point 25 . Sections view from TH 5. Ellson: Isn' t that just a rewording? Krauss : Going back to 24 if we could for a moment. Their option on 24 was an alternative to what we had proposed with basically two fronts. You may want to put some language in there that either, the roof section be extended the entire length or an alternative acceptable to the City that achieves the same design goals being utilized . Batzli : That'd be great except I don't know what the design goal was . Erhart : It doesn ' t look artificial or doesn' t look like just a front . Batzli : Well that ties it down pretty much. Did you get that Steve? I get the feeling you' re going to make that motion. Emmings : Oh no . Conrad : Anything on 25? 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 49 Erhart : Yeah. I think we should reword that a little bit . I don' t think it says what staff really what they meant to say and tone it a down a little bit and say that sections shall verify that, Paul maybe you have some ideas or just correct me if I 'm wrong but I think some of the roof equipment and the storage areas and the loading docks are really what you want to verify that's hidden and you ' re not really expecting to hide the majority of the roof. ' Olsen: That' s not what we meant. 1 Erhart: So I think just a little rewording there. Headla: You mean like delete storage area? ' Erhart : No. Keep storage in there. Headla : Where it says roof equipment, storage areas. I think storage areas could be deleted there . I 'm sorry, roof equipment. Erhart: Roof. Roof. I think the roof is what, take that out. Conrad : Last one, point 26 . Comments . Okay. Ellson: I wanted to bring up that one more point that I thought about as I ' was going through this . When we looked at the SuperAmerica we asked them not to display merchandise on the sidewalk ongoing and I like what it looks like . While I 'm for crazy day sales and sidewalk sales like a strip mall ' type of promotion, I could see people having racks of things out there and the lawn mowers. and what have you. I would like to see display of merchandise on the sidewalk ongoing and I know that the hardward store has some outdoor store things where they could take people back. So does the ' lawn and sports so I know if they wanted to actually show people lawn mower and walk it around, they could have that capability and I 'd rather not see the merchandise out on the sidewalk ongoing. I think the design and all ' the marble and all the awnings would look tacky with things sitting out there. Shovels and lawn mowers and things displayed like that. So I wanted some input . What do you guys think? ' Emmings : Are there any covenants or anything that will prevent , can you tell us, that will prevent people from displaying and selling merchandise out on the front of the building and the sidewalk? Brad Johnson : The leases require that it be an ongoing thing and that it be approved by the landlord in the case of Super Value. I don' t know how ' many of you have ever driven up to the Super Value store that has rock salt and stuff outside where you can pick it up and that' s probably something we have to talk to them about . If you go down to Cooper ' s , that ' s where they keep, a lot of their merchandise is outside for you to pick up. ' Emmings: Sometimes they do it , yeah outside by where you pick up your groceries . J Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 50 Brad Johnson: I don' t know what their plan is so I can ' t. Cooper ' s down there I think he' s got it in a shed that' s out in front and I agree that some of that stuff doesn ' t look very good and I think there could be some controls but maybe you have a conditional use. Any outside storage for sale in that particular district currently and I think is by conditional use permit but maybe there' s some way we can figure it all out. We just don' t know. Is that about right Jim? Jim Winkles : Well a standard lease language says that any or all outside I display of any equipment or merchandise is subject to approval of the landlord . I guess I don' t disagree at all with the thought of you I shouldn' t be able to do this on an ongoing basis . There are always those things . That ' s not uncommon at all for centers to have. Sidewalk sales and special events and things like that. I don' t think, we certainly don' t want people to all of a sudden extending their store out to their curb lin on an ongoing basis and start having to have problems with merchandise tha gets ruin by everybody so I don' t disagree with that . I think again, it' s the language to make sure it is, when you have a storewide or centerwide promotions or something like that . I don' t think we' d have a problem with that. Emmings : We imposed this on the SuperAmerica up on TH 7 and TH 41. We didn' t really impose it on them. They agreed to go along with it when we asked them for it . As I recall , I think that place is one of the better looking facilities of that type for it. I really think it looks sharp. Headla : . . . this person up here? Emmings : We' ve been a little inconsistent on this point frankly but I don't think that stops us from doing whatever we want to. Ellson : Something in the language like display of merchandise not on the I sidewalk except in a center promotion or something like that. In other words, I 'm trying to think, I don' t think Driskill ' s has stuff sitting out there or the Rainbow. ' Emmings: Yeah they do at Driskill ' s . They've got salt outside where you pick up your groceries. Up at TH 7 and TH 41 they do. Ellson : Well , I just don' t like it . We could make that a 27 or something . Conrad: I don' t mind it. I think it' s a consumer need and I think they police themselves . I think the landlord will police himself. It ' s to the benefit to keep it clean yet in the exception, I think there' s justification so if the motion is made that way, it should be specific . I ' think that a tenant like Super Value has some needs . Whether it be dog foods , salt pellets , whatever that ' s heavy. Ellson: We' re talking about our downtown. It' s not like we' re out in the side of the highway or something . You' re going all the way downtown and everything looks nice and neat and there' s a dog food bag on the side: Conrad : I don' t think it counts . ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 51 Erhart: I sense that Eden Prairie doesn ' t allow it at all? Ellson: The Super_America has it . ' Erhart: Rainbow doesn ' t have it outside . ' Ellson: No, it' s not at Rainbow. It' s like where you get your carts and stuff. Just like the last place . Batzli : I don ' t think Lund ' s has it but that might be just their little bit. . . Ellson: They' re higher class . ' Batzli : Oh, we don' t say that. Super Value ' s very high class . 1 Brad Johnson: You don' t have the plan but they have a plan to us of an exterior storage area that if you look at it you probably could see what. They were aware of the' concerns that you have and they also are aware so somehow we have to get an approval process for them because they' re the ' ones that are, it's just hard to move that salt around you know so they try to get it outside. But they apparently have a plan right Bill? In their plan, what you don' t have and we don' t have, because they' re doing their ' own design, that handles it architecturally so it looks okay. Emmings: Are you saying it' s going to be inside something? How does it work? Brad Johnson : Maybe you can explain but everybody' s sensitive to the problem I think. Bill Brisley: What I ' ve seen so far is an appendage on the building that ' s down on one end of the. . . ' Ellson : Our aesthetically pleasing end . ' Bill Brisley: It' s down at this end of the building and it' s enclosed. It has a little hip roof on it . It actually looks like a nice little element that actually breaks up the face of the wall . Their outside pick-up just comes right out the door and that ' s what these canopies are for and then thing terminates that at the end. It' s actually quite attractive. Batzli : Are those the dotted lines on the site plan? ' Olsen: That' s expansion. Bill Brisley: No , that ' s the expansion. ' Batzli : In the front of the building? Emmings : But if it' s in a little shed , then it ' s not outside storage I ' guess is it? So it' s inside so I guess that' s no problem. Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 52 Bill Brisley: It is the wall . It is the building . It has a roof. I Ellson: It sounds like they' re addressing it. It' s the sidewalk stuff that you've obviously, I think everyone agrees with what we' re talking I about. Maybe this will solve that . Batzli : I kind of side with Ladd on this in that I think it might be appropriate to a convenience store where you' re trying to police one owner but in a landlord situation like this with a number of tenants , I don' t know. I Ellson: I think it' s all the more reason. You' ve got that many more stores that could do it and that much more. Maybe what we see looks like this. If you want to get a feel for what it looks like. . . I Erhart: Did we say that SuperAmerica couldn' t have outside storage? Ellson : Yes . I Conrad: Could not. Erhart : Well I think we ought to be consistent . I Conrad: Then I think there'd better be some codes or ordinances developed for Chanhassen and I think we'd better get the Chamber of Commerce involve in that because I don' t think businesses are real , and that' s a major impact . I ' ll guarantee you that that generates business for the folks . Will can' t be arbitrary. Erhart : I don ' t disagree with you but then why did we apply that to the SuperAmerica? I Conrad : Because the neighborhoods were so irritated up there. They were so hostile to that development I think that it was one way of toning , it was a piece of flesh basically that was thrown their way. Emmings: But they agreed to it . We didn' t really impose it. Conrad : They didn' t want it but they did agree. They just did not want t make another issue float around. Erhart : Is there another development that we imposed a no outside storage Conrad: No. I Headla : Well we did to Bernie Hanson. He could keep it outside but for a limited amount. I Conrad : But he still could have it out there. Headla: During the say. I II ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 53 I Conrad : We just restricted the square footage . Erhart: So we haven' t consistently applied it? ' Emmings: Never . Erhart : Then I 'm okay with your proposal of not trying to regulate it. I was just trying to say, if we' re going to start something, and we' re applying , we ought to apply consistently but it sounds like that was an exception. ' Conrad : I think the owners have a motivation to keep it clean. Anything else? ' Batzli : Not to mention the additional conditions of something about the canvas , maintaining it. Maybe outlot maintenance. Some other things that people brought up during our discussion. I don' t know. There was at ' least one other one. Oh yeah, what about the fact that they've got a new design for the building? Don' t we want to make them revise the plans to reflect that? Wouldn' t that be kind of nice? Emmings : Revise what? Batzli : The elevations page would have to be totally changed . Emmings: Okay. totally ' Batzli : I guess we already handled the lighting . I don ' t know how we handled it but. Bill Brisley: It is changed . It ' s just that you don' t have copies of it . Is that what you' re saying? That' s what this board is . Emmings : We' re saying you' ve got to submit them to the City. ' Conrad: Steve, is there a motion? Emmings: I' ll take a swing at it . I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD development plan and preliminary plat for Market Square as shown on plans dated September 11, 1989 with the following conditions. 1, 2, 3, will be as written in the staff report. 4 ' will read , the first sentence will stay in and the second sentence will be struck and then we' ll add in that sidewalks will be built along the entire easterly boundary of the property, along the west side of Market Blvd. and 1 also sidewalks will be built to connect the sidewalk on the south side of West 78th Street down to the sidewalk that runs in front of the shopping center and similarly there will be a sidewalk from Market Blvd . going in towards the front of the grocery store . 5 and 6 will stay as they are in the staff report . 7 will be modified. 7 will read, the first sentence will stay as it is and the second sentence will be striken and we ' ll substitute in a new second sentence that will say that any drive thru ' proposed by the developer will require site plan approval . 8 will stay as it is . 9 will be changed to read that , parking lot lighting will be I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 54 consistent with other lighting in the central business district that is of the street. That is , we' re not going to require the decorative lighting that' s on the street . Ellson : What are they going to put on 78th though? ' Emmings: Unless they do it around the perimeter of the project and a lighting plan should be submitted and those compromises struck with the staff. 10 will stay as it is as will 11, 12 and 13. 14 will be modified II according to Brian ' s suggestion. The last sentence will be eliminated and the new sentence will be in there that the timing of the installation of the storm sewer is to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuin of building permits taking into consideration the fact that they may want to do these things simultaneously. 15, 16, 17 , 18 , 19 and 20 will remain as written by staff. As will 21. On 22 will be modified. The first • sentence, the part in parenthesis will be striken and be replaced by this language. It will say except for a Super Value store and the store at the northern most end of the project which will be allowed 3 walls signs . ' Batzli : Should you say northwestern most? Emmings: Okay. You understand we' re talking about the building that' s toll the north of the hardware store. There' s a modification in the next to last sentence that starts the applicant will submit and right there we' ll insert for staff approval , signed covenants. 23 will stay as written by staff . 24 will be modified as we discussed to read that roof sections wil be provided by the applicant to verify that the roof sections for the entire length of the building or some alternative acceptable to the City. That last sentence will stay in there for now. Or should just stay in there. 25, we' ll modify that I think according to Tim' s comments that sections will be provided to show the relationship between the development and TH 5 with particular concern for the screening of roof equipment , storage areas, loading docks to be verify their visibility from TH 5 and i they are visible, additional screening may be provided . Shall be provided. 26 will stay as is. 27 will read that, I 'm basically going int" the report here on page 3 under Outlot A, number 3. It will read , I 'm going to change it a little bit though, it' s going to read, the design and materials used on any structures on Outlot A will be compatible with the shopping center building and the veterinary clinic. 28 will be basically what' s now the end of 4. That the development contract will require financial sureties and construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council for all public improvements . 29 will be , it' s all issue I don' t know exactly what to do with it but it has to do with the fact that the plan shows that the entrance lanes off of Market Blvd . are presently 12 feet wide on the plan and they City's going to require something wider there. Although we didn' t discuss it , that' s a matter that' should be discussed with the staff and presented to the City Council . 30, the outlot until it is developed , should be planted in some kind of a ground cover and maintained so that it has a good appearance. 31 is that the revised plan shall be submitted to reflect the design that ' s been show to us tonight should be submitted to the City. That' s basically my motion and then I have another. one I want to discuss . basically I ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 55 1 Batzli : Do you want to include , Ladd did you want something on there about the canvas and maintenance of the canvas? Conrad : You didn' t include that? ' Batzli : No, he didn' t include that . Ellson: It sounds like we have some control over that as it is . Emmings: I 'm going to end my motion there. Batzli : Okay, I ' ll second it. Conrad: Discussion. ' Emmings : Now the other two I ' ve got I guess , the canvas would be one and the other one is merchandise display. Now it' s pretty clear that Annette ' and I kind of agree here and that we'd probably get voted down on it but I wonder if you 'd be comfortable with language that would just say that there should be no regular outside display and sale of merchandise in the front of the building and just leave it that general and let it be policed because it doesn ' t sound like anybody' s really planning to do it. Conrad: They won' t. Garden store. Emmings : They seem to have an outdoor area in back to display things and stuff so I 'm hoping maybe they' ll do it back there. Conrad : I would be comfortable with what you just said. Emmings : It's kind of vague. Ellson : I think it' s a little on the vague side myself. Conrad: That' s why I 'm comfortable with it . Emmings : I 'm looking for a compromise . Ellson: I guess the regular, the only thing I see is, yes , let ' s say everybody send their stuff out at the same time like a big center wide promotion versus, well I ' ll get approval . Is it okay if I have my lawn tractors out here for 3 months? That ' s not regular because in the winter I don' t have them out there. I 'm going to have my snow shovels out there so it' s something different . I 'm thinking of worse case scenario and maybe Uthat' s my problem. Emmings : And I agree with you but we' re going to get voted down here so I 'm looking for . Headla : Where are you on this Dave? We might get a tie . ' Emmings: Don't want a tie. I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 56 Headla : I think what he said is good as far as the awning . They' re going to police that themselves anyway. Conrad : There' s so many other things that visually will hurt other than the stuff that' s outside. i Ellson: We' re talking awnings. Conrad: Oh we moved to awnings? I Ellson: Yeah. Conrad : I 'm sorry. I 'm still back on the outside display. I don' t think it counts but I 'm comfortable with what Steve is saying. In terms of awnings, I think there should be some kind of a control . ' Emmings: What would you say? How could we say? Conrad : That the City. . . Emmings: They' re going to keep the building in good repair? That' s the trouble. I Erhart: It ' s like they can have no cracked glass . Batzli : Awnings shall be replaced once a year . 111 Conrad : The design elements as presented are maintained . Emmings: Maintained how? Ellson : Kept up. In other words we come back in 5 years and we look at the design and we look at what it is now. Emmings : Nothing stays brand new. I mean ordinary wear and tear . ' Ellson: I like the phrase maintain. It' s just that. You' re going to repair rips . Batzli : Let them worry about it. Conrad : The point being, we want it to look like presented and yeah , theril is depreciation and wear but I don' t want the awnings taken down. I want them to stay or be replaced so the word maintained . I don' t know, maybe it' s not a right word. maybe ' Erhart : I think that ' s probably a bigger concern because after 5 years all of a sudden they' ll decide that we don' t want these awnings anymore and no you don' t have the original . Conrad : But we have the intent statement saying we want. I don' t want it stripped. I don't know this to be. . . 11 " Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 57 I Batzli : How about preserved instead of maintained? Ellson: Well maintenance goes along with maintained so if it' s ripped you' ve got to replace it. Conrad : I 'm not sure maintenance is really what I 'm after . I want the designs that is set forth in these plans to be preserved because the point ' being , this could be one long building without some of the things that break it up. ' Ellson: Ladd , Paul knows the answer . Krauss: It' s not really a solution but you may be indulging in a bit of over kill . When you approve a plan , it is the obligation of the property ' owner to maintain it consistent with that approval and that goes for gas stations and shopping centers alike. Any deviations from that have to be authorized. I mean you can make a stipulation for that but I don' t think you really need to . Erhart : If they want to paint some of the pieces a different color , you mean to tell me that they couldn' t do that? ' Krauss : That falls into a gray area but if they wanted to rip off a significant architectural element like an awning, you can make a very good case . Erhart : You think that ' s pretty clear? Krauss: Yes . Emmings : Okay. I 'm comfortable with it . Conrad: Because an awning is a significant element? 1 Ellson : That many of them. Emmings : Then I ' d move to amend my motion so that we have a condition, whatever number we' re up to , 32 or so, that there be no regular display or sale of merchandise outside in the front of the building . Conrad: Point number 32 . rBatzli : You want them to be able to do it in the back of the building? Why just in the front? Where' s the front? How about the sides? The back? ' Emmings : I think they' re .intendin Here they' ve got outdoor storage for intending . they' ve g the lawn and sport store and I think it seems , it says outdoor store. I don' t know if that means storage or if they' re actually going to have stuff out there that they' re going to be selling and I don' t care if it happens back in a place like that . I 'm more concerned about how it looks from the main parking area. r Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 58 II Ellson: Right . So that one could have stuff out in the back of the building so you' re covered there. Batzli : I think for safety reasons you don' t want a lot of traffic behind the building. I think we could make just as good of an argument that II getting out back. Emmings: Let' s just say that there won' t be any regular display and sale of merchandise outside.] Batzli : I accept that . Conrad : Okay, a motion was made and seconded . Any further discussion? I I ' ll call a question. Erhart : What are we voting on?' Are we voting on the amendment or are we I voting on the whole motion? Conrad : The whole motion. I Erhart: I 'd like to offer another amendment before we vote on the whole motion. I guess I ' ll run it up the flag pole one more time. I guess I 'd II like to see an amendment on there that said that the retail store on the northwest end has to have 3 fronts . It just is incomprehensible to me that we would have a back of a building facing West 78th Street , our main I street. I just can' t believe that we would allow that. Ellson: What constitutes three fronts? Three front doors or three signs? Erhart: Three fronts. Three fronts designed essentially with the same aesthetics something . One is obviously from these drawings but the side that faces that intersection is a back. I Conrad : Steve, do you want to amend your motion to include that? Emmings: Oh boy. j I Ellson : Well the Council can certainly wrestle with it. Emmings : I think it' s a real good point. I don' t think that the back of I that should be facing the street that way. I think it looks awful but I 'm not sure I 'm ready to impose that on the developer but maybe I could be I talked into it . Erhart : Just go ahead and I ' ll just not vote for it. I Emmings: Why don' t you just make an amendment yourself? Erhart : You mean after we vote for it? 1 Emmings: No. Move. II II ` Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 59 Erhart : I ' ll move for amendment as the 33rd condition that the retail store on the northwest side be architecturally designed to have 3 fronts . Conrad : Is there a second to that motion? I ' ll second it . 11 Emmings: Let' s see how people feel about it . ' Ellson: I think front is, it sounds like you have to 3 sides of good windows and stuff and that just kind of concerns me. In other words , everyone should look pretty close to the same. I 'm saying it would look really nice but a front to me sounds like an entrance and the whole ' shebang . What do you think? That' s the only thing that' s bugging me is the wordage of front. ' Conrad : I think that can be worked out . I think the intent is well documented. Any comments? ' Krauss : Just to clarify. Would one of the things that you might be looking at would be a roof element around that side possibly would incorporate the sign that they wanted? And that would satisfy what you' re looking for? ' Conrad : Or we don ' t want to see back doors over there. ' Erhart: Yeah, I don' t want to see a back door . Ellson: All brick with one little back steel door you know. ' Erhart: And in the case if it was a restaurant, it would be easily a 3 sided restaurant . The reason you have back doors is that it' s some kind of a store that you bring your inventory in the back and you sell it out the ' front . In some cases you don' t need to do that. Or if it' s food or something, the inside door can appear like a front door or something . There ' s a major , you' ve got an intersection right there and you' re going to have a back of a building facing an intersection. I just think aesthetically it can be worked better than what' s shown on this plan without spending an enormous amount of money. ' Conrad : Okay, I ' ll call a question on your motion Tim. ' Erhart moved, Conrad seconded an amendment to include condition 33 which states the retail store on the northwest side shall be architecturally designed to have 3 fronts. All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried . Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD Development Plan and preliminary plat for Market Square as shown on plans dated September 11 , 1989 with the following conditions: 1. A PUD contract will be drafted which will contain all of the conditions ' of approval and will be recorded against Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Outlot A of Market Square. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 60 2. The applicant will vacate a portion of the West 78th Street right-of-way and a revised plan must be submitted accommodating the future right turn lane and acceleration lane on West 78th Street. 3. Outlot A will only be accessed internally and it will not be permitted' any separate access points from West 78th Street or Market Boulevard . 4. The 8 foot wide bituminous pathway along with West 78th Street will be ' accommodated by a trail easement and the applicant will be responsible for installing the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway as part of the site , development . Sidewalks will be built along the entire easterly y boundary of the property, along the west side of Market Blvd. and also sidewalks will be built to connect the sidewalk on the south side of West 78th Street down to the sidewalk that runs in front of the shopping center and similarly there will be a sidewalk from Market Blvd . going in towards the front of the grocery store. 5. The pedestrian walkway through the parking area shall be extended to I the sidewalk on Market Boulevard. 6. The site plan shall be revised to show how truck docking at the Lawn I and Sport store will be able to maneuver out of the site. 7. The site plan shall be revised to remove the drive thru being represented at the northern portion of the shopping center . Any drive thru proposed by the developer will require site plan approval . 8. An additional trash enclosure shall be provided to accommodate the northern portin of the shopping center and additional individual trash enclosures within the parking areas will be prohibited. The trash enclosures shall be surrounded by earth berm or opaque fence or a combination of both at a 6 foot height . 9 . Parking lot lighting will be consistent with other lighting in the central business district that is off the street. 10. The outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by at least a 6 foot hig concrete block fence to match the building material used for the shopping center . 11. Curbing shall be painted yellow as indicated on the drawing as part of ' the Fire Inspector ' s memo dated September 13 , 1989. No parking fire lanes shall be installed as indicated by the dots on the Fire Inspector ' s plan and the addition of two fire hydrants as shown on the ' Fire Inspector ' s plan shall be provided . 12. The existing 10" PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron asing which clearly extends 10 feet beyond the limits of II any building, footings or sidewalk with manholes built at each end of the casing to provide access . The sewer main must be properly blocked encased in the ductile iron casing , i .e. grouted or pea rock. ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 61 ' 13. Gate valves shall be added to the watermain and a new utility easement will be required for the new 10" watermain line. 14. The developer will be responsible for the extension of the existing 72 ' inch storm sewer along the south property line and the plans should be modified to note that this storm sewer work is the responsibility of the developer . This line must be approved by the City Engineer prior ' to issuance of any building permit. City 15. The applicant shall provide drainage and calculations to determine the ' adequacy of the catch basin and storm sewer system. 16. Additional details concerning roof drainage must be submitted for Engineering Department approval . ' 17 . The grading plans shall be revised to clarify the impact of the grading along the Soo Line Railraod tracks and shall show how the grading contours will match the existing grades on the railroad property. 18. Berming around the site shall be confined within the property and not ' within the street right-of-way, specifically along Monterey Drive. 19. The applicant shall provide additional evergreens along the south lot line of the property to screen the loading docks for the hardwar store ' and the grocery store. 20. Conifer shrubs shall be provided and ornamental shade trees shall be ' planted along the building facade to break up the massing of shrubs and the compact viburnum shall be used in lieu of the regular viburnum as proposed . ' 21. Additional deciduous trees shall be included in the parking islands just north of the grocery store. ' 22. Each individual wall sign shall have to receive a sign permit and each tenant shall only be permitted two wall signs except for a Super Value store and the store at the northern most end of the project which will be allowed 3 walls signs. The covenants will include the veterinary clinic (Lot 2, Block 2) and Outlot A. The applicant will submit for staff approval signed covenants which regulate type, size and location of the wall signage. The covenants should also state how much space ' per tenant will be permitted for each wall sign. 23. The proposed monument signs will match what is proposed as part of the ' plans and will not be increased in size. The entire site will be limited to two of the monument signs as proposed . The individual stores will be permitted to be listed on the monument sign as proposed but the lettering will not be permitted to be interchangeable such as a ' reader board. Outlot A and Lot 2, Block 1 shall not be permitted separate pylon or monument signage. 24. Roof sections will be provided by the applicant to verify that the roof section is for the entire length of the building or some alternative Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 62 acceptable to the City. The City will not accept a false front. 25. The sections will be provided to show the relationship between the development and TH 5 with particular concern for the screening of roof equipment, storage areas , loading docks to be verify their visibility I from TH 5 and if they are visible, additional screening shall be provided. 26. The final plat shall provide drainage and utility easements and cross II easements shall be provided over Lot 1, Block 1, for Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot A. 27. The design and materials used on any structures on Outlot A will be compatible with the shopping center building and the veterinary clinic. 28 . The development contract will require financial sureties and ' construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council for all public improvements . 29 . The developer shall provide the additional width for the entrance lanes off of Market Blvd. as required by staff . 30. Outlot A, until it is developed , should be planted in some kind of a ground cover and maintained so that it has a good appearance. 31. The revised plan shall be submitted to reflect the design that was shown at the Planning Commission meeting tonight should be submitted to the City. 32 . No regular display or sale of merchandise outside will be permitted . 33. The retail store on the northwest side shall be architecturally designed to have 3 fronts . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Clayton Johnson: I 'd like to make a comment . If the motion has passed , , we've got a very serious problem. I mean we came forward with this as a PUD. The whole concept behind it was to allow the shopping center project to proceed and we cannot in good conscience deliver title to the shopping center without a resolution of Outlot A. If we have a customer for Outlot A and that customer is more than willing to accept the access that you 've outlined , at that point in time we' d be happy to proceed but we can ' t proceed at this point until we get a customer for Outlot A because we can not take a piece of property that ' s extremely valuable and cut off the corner of it and not have access to it. So I mean that' s the impact of what you' ve done tonight is you' ve killed the project until there ' s a customer for Outlot A. Conrad : Well you' re still going through City Council . Clayton Johnson: What we can do is overturn it at the Council . , Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 63 ' Conrad : And I think when we don' t see something on a plan , I think that' s a problem. We've been burned before many times when there' s been vacant things and there ' s all sorts of expectations built in. I think staff has interpretted it differently than maybe in the past and in this particular ' case, you' ve heard us say that we probably would be open to looking at that. Yet on the other hand I heard some very serious concerns that staff didn' t feel 78th had a good access . I think Market has some potential in my mind but I don' t think there was a mandate that said yeah, you would. It wasn ' t closed down in my mind but it certainly didn' t say that there was that great potential . say ' Clayton Johnson: I think you can understand our point. We don' t want to proceed until that' s resolved. Conrad : Absolutely and I think it' s to your benefit of course to do that . ' (Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and Steve Emmings took over as chairman of the meeting . ) ' PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A DECK ON THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED WEST OF CHOCTAW CIRCLE ALONG ' LOTUS LAKE, LOTUS LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Emmings : Just clarify one thing for me . Even if we change the ordinance to allow a deck on a recreational beachlot, they still couldn' t build it ' without a variance because you can ' t build a structure within 75 feet of the high water mark. Is that right? ' Olsen : They would still need a variance and they would still have to come back through and amend their conditional use permit. ' Emmings : Okay. Is the applicant here and do they want to present anything? Nick Gassman : Good evening . My name is Nick Gassman. I am the ' representative of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. What Jo Ann has laid out there for you is fairly true . The deck is existing . It ' s an existing structure. It' s 12 x 14. It' s above grade. It' s not a permanent structure. There' s no footings . It ' s sitting on a beam arrangement . It can be moved and lifted and moved around . The deck was put there for, I don ' t know what the definition of a hardship is but it was put there for primarily three reasons . First of all we had , during the rain 2 years ago, we had part of the hill wash out and it left a very eye sore where it left pulled shrubs and trees down. We filled that with exactly what the size of the deck is , 12 x 14. It' s also being used for some of the folks in our ' neighborhood don ' t use the deck area because they' re of more of a senior level age. They want to go down there and watch kids , grand kids, etc. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 64 They want to be in the shade . This area allows for that on the deck. It allows them a solid platform. They can sit up and not be in the sand and do that . It also allows mothers better visibility because it is up higher . It' s about 3 foot above grade and it allows them again to watch their kids swimming and things like that in our swimming area . It ' s also , aesthetically very, very pleasant. It' s very nice. It' s nice to have a picnic on there, etc . and not be in the sand with , if you' ve got kids . It' s got a railing around it. It's perfectly safe. Guarded, etc. . It I also enhances our beach property. The outlot . There ' s 44 homeowners in the association. We take great pride in trying to make the property that we have nicer , better as witnessed by our driveway. We've been constantly every year our dues go to that front end so it' s prettier and it enhances our property which enhances our property values . Again we' re trying to, again add beauty and value to the property that we own and are very proud to own. I guess the next thing that I would ask is , you can see some II positive aspects of that and we' re trying to improve rather than detract from the lake area . We' ve taken great strides of maintaining the outlot that we were given the permission to build this beach way before I was a neighbor and have come to like that we do have a conditional beach permit. All the legal things but if you could see your way clear to look at it. Realize that it' s a real asset rather than fa drawback or a negative I gues for the outlot specifically. I refer back to what you folks have drafted as factors upon which the conditional use permit will be based on the Planning Commission and the 11 points that are on this sheet of paper here, I cannot honestly look at any one of you and tell you that our deck, this small 12 x 14 platform, violates any of these. If it did, I could sit her and tell you that we did and we' d take other action but what we'd like to do is do anything that we can as a Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association to make this right . To maintain and keep our deck. To file the necessary permits which we' ve done and Jo Ann and I have negotiated in good faith to go through the proper channels to make this happen so that everybody is happy and it ' s a win win deal for everybody concerned. I guess at that point I ' d really ask for your understanding and let ' s do what' s right and fair . Emmings : Can you explain to us why someone from your group would call and find out that a permit was necessary and then no permit be obtained but the structure was built anyway? Nick Gassman : Well at the time, yes I can. At the time. . . Resident: I was the person who called . ' Nick Gassman: At the time that that phone call was made, I was unaware that there was any phone contact made. The neighborhood had been talking about building a deck since after the rain. It was a natural . If you had ' a photo, you could see why. The advantages of having it, etc. . The washout and everything but when the phone call was made and Jo Ann and I have been over this, I was unaware that there was an inquiry of the procedures to do through. As a matter_ of fact, I have to plead even further ignorance and I hate to do that on video tape for God' s sake but that I was unaware of the conditional , of the wording, of the verbage of the conditional use permit. I 'm the president of the homeowners I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 65 ' associations . I 'm newly elected as a rookie , I might add , and now I am aware of it. I realize the stupidness I guess, for lack of a better word, of our action and now I want to make a right . I want to do the right thing to keep the deck. It was not a cheap proposition and we built it so it ' would be safe . It were environmentally conscience of it so we didn' t dig holes, sink concrete footings or anything like that so it' s a free board platform. I just want to make it right . Emmings: Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other comments? This is a public hearing item. Is there anybody else here who wants to speak on this? anybody ' Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. ' Erhart: I think we have to move to deny it as recommended by staff . Is there a dock next to this thing? Nick Gassman : The way it' s laid out , I wish I had a photo to show you because if you were to look at the photo, the way the deck is positioned in the property, it makes terrific sense . way Erhart : I don ' t want to get into it at this time. I 'm just suggesting , do we have a definition of how big a dock can be and all that? ' Olsen: A deck or dock? ' Erhart: Dock. A dock is allowed right? Nick Gassman : We have a permit for 3 docks . Erhart: Is it defined how big a dock can be and what the answer is? It ' s well defined? ' Emmings : Yeah . 6 feet wide . Resident : It also states that there can be on all three docks an end ' platform 10 x 10. A large platform and that is only sitting on one of the docks . Erhart : Well why don ' t you just , instead of building a 14 x 12, making it ' a 10 x 10 platform on the dock? I 'm just giving you a suggestion but I think we have to move to deny it. ' Ellson: Nothing new here. I 'm afraid the same thing . Batzli : Yeah. I don' t know that this deserves a variance at this time . ' Headla: I 'm not interested in a structure there and I shudder when I think what it can do to other beachlots also then because then everyone would have the right to come in for the same thing . Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 66 1 Emmings : I basically agree. Go ahead . Do you have some comment you'd I like to make?basically Resident : I was just going to say, when I moved there , I moved in about a year before him, and when we did have that rain there was this land that I just kind of , I don' t know where it went . It washed away and it really looked awful . I 'm sure you wouldn' t have liked to have seen that from the water either . They have structures that keep everything picked up. We I clean all our garbage. We' re very conscience in how it looks and environmentally and everything else . This does sit low. It isn' t like it's a big gazebo type of thing. It looks good from the lake part and it really, if we remove it , then we' ve got a big hole there that has it' s 11 environmental where. . . Emmings : There ' s nobody sitting up here who doesn ' t think this thing is I probably useful and probably attractive and that you all like it and that you want to leave it there but we' re here applying an ordinance to a set of facts. Our ordinance doesn' t allow that thing. That' s the reaction your seeing up here . The state shoreland zoning act which has been adopted by . this city does not allow it and our zoning ordinance doesn' t allow it. You have 2 things that are just a brick wall . Now if you can get a variance t them, that' s fine but. Resident : What terminology? What is a variance? Emmings: A variance is used to addressed a hardship. I ' ll read it to you II because it ' s language we look at again and again and nobody ever remembers . A variance is just permission to depart from the ordinance. Basically we say, the law says you can ' t do it but we' re going to let you because and what you have to show, oh cripe. In our definition section there isn' t a hardship but a hardship is something that usually is imposed by some physical feature or some peculiarity. It can never be imposed by the owne of the property. It can ' t be created by the owner of the property and you have no hardship here. There' s nothing that would fit in the conditions you' ve described to us that would come close to being a hardship. You I don' t need the deck there for any purpose. Resident : If it keeps raining and it washes away, what . . . II Emmings: I 'm not an engineer but I know that there is lots of ways to stabilize land without building a deck on it . Building a deck would not b my first choice if I was going to stabilize land. That ' s not the first thing I 'd think of. I 'd think of filling it in with something . Building something that would keep it from washing away. Planting it with something . Getting rid of the source of the runoff that ' s creating the II erosion. There' s 10 things I 'd do before I 'd say the solution to this erosion problem is a deck. I don ' t think that would occur to me but an example maybe of a hardship is , in fact I have a variance on my own lot . had a lot that didn' t have any street frontage but it was an old lot. It had been there forever . I was given a variance to build a house on that lot because the house had been there and there was no way to do anything about it. Either I got the variance or no one could ever build a house on that lot. That' s an example of a hardship where you can get a variance. II ' Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 67 ' think you' re just flat up against . Basically what she said is right . If we' re going to allow something like this, we'd have to go back and rewrite our ordinance and all it on every beachlot . There' s no beachlot with a deck on it in town. That' s never been allowed. Resident : That' s an incorrect statement . ' Emmings : If there is, you tell her about it and we' ll go out and they' ll be here just like you are. Resident : I have a question. When it' s denied at this level , does it now also pass to the next level? Emmings : Yeah. We don' t make any decisions here. We make recommendations to the City Council . It just goes up to the City Council and they make the final decision and you should follow it right up there and make your case up there if they let you speak. ' Resident : If? Is that what you said? If they let me speak or when? ' Emmings: I said if because they don' t always allow public input. On the other hand , they will read the comments . Resident: This is the last public level? ' Olsen: It ' s the last public heating . ' Emmings : It' s the last public hearing but for one , they get a copy of our minutes. Everything that' s said here, they read before their meeting so what you' ve said here tonight they' ll read . Send a request to be heard if that' s what you want to do. ' Resident : My second question. I ' ve sat here for 3 1/2 hours , almost 4. ' Emmings: So have I . Resident : Yes , listening to another one which was very interesting and ' I heard a couple of comments that struck me a little bit. One was when they were talking about the monuments outside the buildings. They talked about slipping an ordinance. They ' Emmings : Who did? Resident : That Conrad talked about we would slip by an ordinance . Erhart: That was a misuse of terms. That was a poor term. A PUD by definition allows us to exchange in exchange for things we get from the ' developer we can negotiate on things that we allow. Slipping was a poor use of terms. Let me say one thing . Resident: So that' s a negotiated point? ' Emmings : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 68 Erhart : Being the old guy on the Planning Commission and trying to understand where you' re coming from, I 've been involved in these things for 3 years now and these beachlots . The Planning Commission 5 years ago was given the task of, in the first place, we have the task to write ordinance" in this group. We were given the task about 5 years ago to standardize a beachlot ordinance because everybody in the city was abusing these things. We did that and we got public input . It went through the whole process anll we established an ordinance and since that time, every 3 to 6 months another beachlot group comes in and wants to do something different. And by allowing one group to do something different, you will have thrown out all the work that was done that we were requested to do by the City Council 5 ' years ago and that' s, I think you've got to understand a little sense of that is the reaction you' re getting here tonight . And in summary, the City Council can override what, this is simply a recommendation and generally our recommendation is to stay consistent with the ordinances that we write So I encourage you to go to the City Council and make your case. Resident : I have one last question? Do they allow sea walls on Lotus Lake? Emmings: Rip rap, something like that? Is that what you' re talking about" Resident: Yeah. Wood. Anything of that nature? Emmings : You have to get a permit from DNR. Olsen: You have to go through the DNR and sometimes , depending on where they' re located and the size you don' t need a permit . Resident: So it' s a yes . Emmings : But don' t go do it . Get a permit . Olsen: Come to us_ too. Batzli : Because it may be around a wetland or some other thing as well . Resident: I was asking a very general broad term. ' Resident : Can I ask Tim. What did you mean when you said something about cut it down to 10 x 10? Is that an option? Emmings : No . He' s talking about at the end of your dock. I 'm cutting off discussion on this as I think we've discussed it thoroughly and we can tal about it more later privately. We' ve got other people waiting here and it ' s getting very late and the public hearing has been closed. So I 'm going to call a question this . Is there a motion on this? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of request for a variance to the conditions of the zoning ordinance for a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor and the motion carried . 11 * Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 69 Batzli : Do we have to talk about the amendment to the condition use also Jo Ann? Olsen: If that ' s something you wish for Planning staff to pursue . You can leave that up to the Council . Batzli : If I just stop my motion right there have we covered it? Olsen: Yes you have. OFFICIAL MAPPING OF TH 212. Paul Krause presented a brief staff report. Emmings : This is not a public hearing . Do you have any comments you 'd like to make or just here to answer questions? f Evan Green : No, I 'm just here if you want me to answer any questions . Paul ' s covered it rather well . It ' s the same map you've had before you for ' I don ' t know how long . The City Council has approved the layout and this official map is based the layouts that have been approved by the City. ' Emmings : What we' re looking at is over here. If you people want to go take a look. you The Planning Commission looked at the layout of the official mapping of TH 212 with Evan Green and Fred Hoisington. The map was located on the wall away from the microphones . Batzli moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission approve the TH ' 212 Official Map and forward it to the City Council for public hearing and final adoption. All voted in favor and the motion carried . ' Emmings: Let' s put 4 over and 5 over to out next meeting. Is that alright? ' Ellson moved , Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 45 p.m. . ' Submitted by Paul Krauss Director of Planning Prepared by Nann Opheim JEJITE ! ' : 14 1 E CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION II REGULAR M SEPTEMBER E12,N1989 IChairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. . I MEMBERS PRESENT: Dawne Erhart, Curt Robinson , Jim Mady, Jan Lash and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt and Ed Hasek ISTAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor IAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schroers moved, Robinson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 29, 1989 as amended on page 20 by Jan Lash to change "Jim" to "Jan" during Mark IKoegler ' s discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IREVIEW REQUEST TO DELETE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION FROM CURRY FARMS. Public Present: IName Address John Spiess 6610 Arlington Court II Kathy Clarke 6510 Devonshire Joe Cook 1291 Stratton Court Dave Bestler 6551 Devonshire John Flaa 6560 Devonshire Hoffman: We touched on this a little bit in the past meeting and Jan I discussed some of the concerns that she had heard from residents out there and during her walk through. Since that time we have received this petition and letter from the Curry Farm residents. In Lori ' s report on 1 this item, she indicates that staff does find it difficult to make a recommendation on this request that we take that sidewalk out of there. That requirement. In the past year we have numerous discussions regarding II where trails and sidewalks should be placed. The Commission recommended a policy regarding sidewalks and trails. That was adopted by the City Council . It is logical that the Commission would uphold or recommend upholding that policy and that policy does state that in the Comprehensive I Trail Plan was to endorse sidewalks, trails along thru streets to connect neighborhoods to other neighborhoods, parks , schools, downtown, etc . . Sidewalks/trails are not called for along dead end streets or cul-de-sacs . I What Lori ' s conclusion was is what this attached request represents is an argument for , is this piece of sidewalk a link in a city wide trail or solely just a neighborhood sidewalk just to serve those residents in that I neighborhood? I anticipated more residents to be here tonight in view of the number that were on the petition but Jim you can go ahead and open it up. I Mady: Okay, that ' s what I 'd like to do is open it up for public comment. What I 'd ask you to do is please step up to the microphone. Our meetings II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 12, 1989 - Page 2 are taped and so it facilitates the transcriber to be able to pick up what you' re saying. Just state your name and your address . 1 Joe Cook: My name is Joe Cook and we' re at 1291 Stratton Court . First thing, part of the reason that some of the new residents that have just recently moved into the development within the last month here did not receive the notice of this meeting so that' s part of the reason why some people aren' t here. I guess our concern is the neighbors in the area there is that generally the whole neighborhood feels that the trail, bike path not necessary in our development given that the neighborhood is fully developed now and there' s no room, no vacant land adjacent to the Curry Farms division for further development. I mean it' s not like they can mak a third division, a fourth division, a fifth division and keep making this thing grow. What' s there is it you know and that' s one of the reasons , an the traffic volume going through the neighborhood is just minimal . Right now during the day, I mean if you go there , the most traffic going through there is construction workers. Trucks, pick-up trucks , etc . . Aside from that, there' s very, very little traffic. There' s just really no need for this trail system as far as we' re concerned. We just overall feel that these monies which Centex is willing to donate to the City to put it into just a general trail fund. They' re willing to do that. That money could be spent much better to develop trails along high traffic corridors where it makes most sense to get people off. If you' re going to have people coming to our park, which it' s a city park. It ' s been designated as a city park and it's not just for the residents of Curry Farms, which has been stated by Lori in the past . Okay, we' ll buy that argument. No problem. II Then you' re looking at, if surrounding people are going to come into our "neighborhood" to use our park, well then they should have a safe route to get to this park in addition to driving but the option should be there for " them to walk there so therefore there should be these monies would be better spent putting trails along the busy corridors . Again, I 'm not saying that it has to be corridors right adjacent to the Curry Farms but wherever. Wherever the city sees it fit. Then that way, in fact if the City were to develop some sort of policy along that lines , the City could develop a more broad trail plan because all the developers would be putting in money to this pool , etc . and they could therefore develop the trails along the most needed corridors of the City. Then in the future, then wor into the subdivisions if the residents so wish . And again, the thing is is that the residents that have bought and/or are paying for this trail . We' re paying for it in the price of our homes . It ' s built into the price of the lot, etc . , etc . . We' re all paying for it through our mortgage money. We say no. We don' t want it. I guess that ' s basically what I have to say about that. basically Schroers : Can I ask you a question Joe? Joe Cook: Sure. Schroers : Has Centex Homes indicated that they' ll contribute that money irregardless of what part of town the money is spent in or is it going to be just to be used at Curry Farms? Joe Cook: I believe so . 1 I