The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Market Square, Public Hearing & PUD for Commerical Center CITYOF CHANHASSEN ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning /e)//-1 ii ! DATE: October 18 , 1989 ' SUBJ: Rezoning to PUD #89-2 Development Stage Approval , Preliminary Plat for Market Square ' PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants are requesting approval to construct a 94 , 158 square foot shopping center at the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The Center would be anchored by a Super Value supermarket . The PUD contains a two acre outlot that would ultimately contain additional development that is planned in a manner consistent with the balance of the PUD . The City Council last reviewed this item on September 11 , 1989 when it was submitted for concept review. The Planning Commission reviewed plans for the PUD Development Stage on September 20 , 1989 . Staff supported the proposal and had recom- mended approval subject to a number of conditions and modifica- tions . The Planning Commisssion discussed the plan extensively and ultimately recommended approval with several revised con- ditions . Since that time the plans were extensively revised to respond to the issues that were raised . Many of the revisions were minor plan details but the most significant changes were to architectural design , building placement and access along West 78th Street . The Planning Commisssion had raised concerns regarding the projects lack of consistency with the balance of the CBD with regard to building placement and questioned the lack ' of compatible architectural design on the northern end of the site. The project was focused internally rather then having an orientation along West 78th Street. At the same time staff wanted to restrict Outlot A to use of existing curb cuts to pro- vide adequate levels of traffic safety on surrounding streets . The revised plan addresses and responds to these concerns by relocating the Vet Clinic to the northwest corner of the site and creating a new free standing building to house a dry cleaner. Both buildings have frontage along West 78th and will help to provide consistency with other development along the street. The r 1 . 1 Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 Page 2 West 78th Street curb cut is adjacent to Outlot A and provides improved access and internal circulation. As a result of these ' changes the size of the center has decreased slightly to 94,158 square feet but the size of the supermarket has been increased to 20,000 square feet with an 8 ,000 square foot expansion area. Staff is satisfied that the current plan is well designed and is acceptable subject to appropriate conditions detailed in the balance of the report. ' The project is being reviewed as a PUD which offers the developer a relaxation of normal development standards in exchange for a higher quality plan. Staff supports the use of the PUD noting that normal ordinance requirements are aften inadequate in dealing with large, multi-tenant projects such as this. We note that the plan takes advantage of the relaxation of normal ' district standards in several areas including hard surface coverage, parking and setbacks. The current plan offers much in exchange including higher quality architectural design, ' landscaping and signage. It also provides for consistent and well planned development of two free-standing buildings and ultimately of Outlot A. The PUD plan also offers the City addi- tional control over the site since it is applied as a zoning district and any significant change requires that the City Council approve a rezoning. Based upon the foregoing Staff is recommending that the PUD be given Development Stage Approval subject to appropriate conditions. The Preliminary Plat is in the process of being revised to account for the final site plan. Consequently, staff is recom- mending that the City Council table acting on the plat until it can be reviewed at an upcoming meeting. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ' Section 20-518 defines the development stage of a PUD. Following • general concept approval of a PUD the applicant shall submit the development stage application, preliminary plat and fee. The development stage shall include but be limited to preliminary plat, site plan information including location, type and size of all graphics and signage and any additional information requested by staff, Planning Commission of City Council. BACKGROUND On August 2, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD con- cept plan for the Market Square commercial shopping center ' (Attachment #1) . The Planning Commission agreed that the site should be developed as a PUD and that the concept plans were r Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 Page 3 moving in the right direction but that more amenities needed to ' be provided to the site such as additional architectural design, landscaping, etc. The City Council reviewed the concept plan on August 28, 1989 (Attachment #2) . The City Council also agreed that the PUD was the proper way to review the site. Since the August 28, 1989, Council meeting, the applicant presented a revised set of plans for staff review to proceed with the development stage (plans dated August 17, 1989) . Staff had several concerns with the revised plans and met with the applicant to review the issues (Attachment #3) . The applicant has submitted another revised set of plans dated September 11, 1989. Although there are still some issues unresolved, the plans are complete enough to proceed with the development stage. The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD for Development Stage approval on October 9 , 1989 (minutes attached) . Staff had recom- mended approval subject to 26 conditions. The Commission indi- cated some initial concern over the number of stipulations. Staff stated that the number of stipulations did not reflect fun- damental problems with the proposal but were rather indicative of its complexity and handling as a PUD. The most significant conditions included: - limitations on additional access to Outlot A. ' - rejection of a drive-up window at the north end of the building due to traffic safety conflicts . - clarification that the developer is responsible for the cost of installation of a 72 inch storm sewer over the south edge of the site and improved screening and landscaping around the rear of the building. The Commission discussed the proposal in great detail. They generally agreed at staff' s recommendations but added several modifications and new conditions including: 1. The design and materials used on any structures on Outlot A will be compatible with the shopping center building and the veterinary clinic. 2 . The development contract will require financial sureties and construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council for all public improvements . 3 . The developer shall provide the additional width for the entrance lanes off of Market Boulevard as required by staff. 11 Rezonin g Square for Market S October 18, 1989 ' Page 4 ' 4. 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. 5 . Revised architectural plans shall be submitted to reflect the design that was shown at the Planning Commission meeting tonight should be submitted to the City. 6 . No regular display or sale of merchandise outside will be permitted. 7. The retail store on the northwest end of the center shall be architecturally designed to have three fronts. The Planning Commission also proposed allowing an additional monument sign for Outlot A, and asked the Engineering Department to assess exactly when the 72 foot storm sewer must be installed and to equip the outlot with a skimmer device. In addition, while they understood staff' s concerns regarding the proposed drive-up window they were willing to allow the developer to make his case through a formal site plan submittal. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE ' The site plan and architectural design have undergone extensive changes as a result of reviews by staff and the Planning Commission. Size of the center and accessory buildings has been decreased slightly, from 99 ,416 square feet to 94 ,158 square feet including future expansions of the super market ( 8 , 000 square ' feet) and drug store ( 2 ,500 square feet) . At the same time the initial size of the super market has grown from 16 , 000 to 20 , 000 square feet. The most significant revision of the site plan occurs at the norther exposure along West 78th Street. The Planning Commission had raised concerns regarding views of the site from West 78th. The concern was that the site plan turned away from the street for an inward focus that did not fit well into the balance of the CBD's streetscape. The lack of architectural detailing on the north elevation was also questioned. At the same time, staff raised significant concerns with the future access to Outlot A. We believed that the outlot should be accessed internally and that additional access points on West 78th or Market would be hazardous. To respond to these concerns the Vet Clinic has been relocated to the northwest corner of the site. In addition to the size of the main building was reduced and a second free standing structure has been proposed along West 78th. This will be occupied by a dry cleaner and contain a covered, drive-up/drop-off area. The 1 Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 Page 5 two buildings would become a part of the CBD's streetscape since ' their visual orientation is toward the street even through the are accessed internally. Sidewalks are incorporated to invite pedestrians to enter from West 78th. , The north end of the main shopping center building will become a three sided space with windows facing north, east and west. It is designed to be occupied by a restaurant or frozen yogurt stand. This avoids the visually "dead" elevations of the origi- nal plan. Staff raised concerns with a drive-up window that was illustrated on the original plan. It is not now shown although the applicants have indicated their desire to keep open the option to have one. Staff cannot support the request since we do not believe it can be accommodated safely. Turning movements and stacking areas related to the window would cause a traffic hazard and contribute to confused access and parking provisions. The Planning Commission recommended that any drive through be subject to the site plan approval. Staff is not opposed to this although we doubt that we would ever be able to recommend its approval. The West 78th Street entrance has been realigned slightly to the east. It now offers improved access into Outlot A and actually provides for a cleaner traffic flow through the site. We believe that the proposed revisions have accommodated staff' s ' concerns in this area. A draft of the revised concept was also informally shown to the Planning Commission and they were recep- tive to the concept. Architectural plans have benefitted from continued refinement. Detailing has been revised since the City Council last reviewed teh plan with additional improvements incorporated since the Planning Commission hearing. The main building now incorporates highly detailed gable sections over major entrances. These gables are used to provide detailing to break up the roof line and to conceal HVAC equipment. The balance of the HVAC equipment is buried behind a 3 foot high parapet. Smaller and less detailed gable sections are found on the rear of the building to help improve off-site views. Staff had hoped that the gables could be connected to avoid creating false fronts similar to a movie set. However, the architect does not believe this is feasible. Instead, the front gables will be 24 ' deep while the rear will be 12 ' deep. New elevations have been prepared for the building. After reviewing them we are satisfied that the building offers a high degree of architectural design. These are large enough to be architecturally significant but the large gap between the gables will be visible from some elevations ( refer to attached illustrations) . Exterior materials include rock faced block base with single score block walls. Wood siding will be used above the smaller tenant spaces with stucco used on the gable sections. The rear of the building will utilize rock faced block and single score block with additional rock faced detailed. I I . Rezoning for Market Square I October 18, 1989 Page 6 IThe Vet Clinic remains architecturally identical to the original proposal with a rock faced block base and brick walls . Details are not provided on the northern and western elevations. We want I to confirm that they will be built of similar materials. We also believe it is important to have windows along West 78th Street and along Monterey Drive since blank walls are not consistent Iwith the CBD's streetscape. The new free standing cleaners building is an attractive struc- ture that utilizes a rock faced block base with wood siding walls ' and a standing seam metal roof. Architectural detailing promotes a visual identification with the main shopping center building. I No details are provided for buildings on Outlot A at this time although it is a part of the PUD. Staff expects to use the PUD designation to insure that when a building is proposed, it is I architecturally compatible with the shopping center. An appropriate stipulation is provided. Staff had requested additional trash enclosures to facilitate I ease of usage. The plan has been revised accordingly. In our experience wood trash enclosures are often difficult to maintain and rapidly require repair. We are recommending that they be I made out of rock faced block to be similar to the main buildings on the site. In additional the trash enclosure that serves the cleaners is inappropriately located in a highly visible area near I the West 78th Street entrance. It should be relocated to the west side of the building or preferrably be contained within the structure. I As requested by staff, the outdoor storage areas located at the rear of the main building are to be built of rock faced block. We are also requesting that the trash compactor for the super I market be provided with a rock faced block screen wall of suf- ficient size to eliminate all views of the compactor. In addi- tion the entire compactor and screen wall should be shifted to the north to provide the required 24 foot wide drive and to allow Ifor two way traffic. ACCESS/PARKING/INTERNAL CIRCULATION IAs we noted earlier access provisions have been revised from the original City Council presentation with the most significant I revisions occurring with the relocation of the West 78th Street curb cut. A deceleration lane and right turn lane from West 78th Street to Market Boulevard that were requested by staff have also been incorporated. Staff has also requested that a triangular I traffic island be installed in the curb cut so that traffic exiting the site is oriented in the correct easterly direction. The north entrance from Market Boulevard has a single lane in Iwith two exiting. We believe that this will probably work in the II 1 Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 Page 7 short run but when Outlot A is developed a second entrance lane will probably be required. Access to Outlot A has been the sub- ject of a good deal of discussion. Staff believes that addi- tional access points would represent a traffic hazard on adjacent streets and should be prohibited. With the realignment of the West 78th Street curb cut, Outlot A has direct frontage on the two main site entrances and can be served very adequately from internal drives. A stipulation prohibiting additional access points has been provided. Pedestrian circulation has been revised in accordance with staff' s recommendations with sidewalks extended around the entire West 78th Street and Market Bouldevard frontages and with connec- tions to internal walkways. The Engineering Department has re- evaluated the Market Boulevard sidewalk issues and now believes that the sidewalk should terminate at the crosswalk over the parking lot that connects into the sidewalk in front of the super market. A painted and signed pedestrian crosswalk should be installed. The goal is to bring the sidewalk over to the east side of the street to require only one pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks . The development contract should clearly state that construction of the sidewalks and crosswalk is the developer' s responsibility. In the long term, the Engineering Department believes that a pedestrian activated flashing signal may be required to maintain safety. Internal circulation has been improved. The south drive aisle at the rear of the building has been widened and adequate truck turning areas are now illustrated. The realignment of West 78th curb cut improves internal circulation by straightening a main drive aisle. Circulation patterns at the north end of the site are a little confusing due to merging traffic. Staff has worked with the applicant to redesign parking lot islands to better direct flow and to incorporate stop signs as needed. Each site exit is also requipped with a stop sign. Due largely to the redesign of the northern end of the site, there are now fewer parking stalls being proposed then would nor- mally be required by typical ordinance standards. The code nor- mally requires one stall for every 200 square feet of gross floor area in a shopping ecenter resulting in a need for 471 stalls when both expansion areas are included. The present plan will ultimately provide only 454 stalls. The PUD ordinance allows the city to create standards suitable for the individual project, thus no variance is required. The real issue is not one of code compliance but rather of satisfying actual demand. Staff has done extensive research into shopping center parking demands and found that a ratio of 4 .5 stalls per 1000 square feet of gross floor area is adequate to accommodate centers of this size. Under this guideline, a requirement for 424 stalls results which is in keeping with the 471 stalls that will be provided. 1 I Rezoning for Market Square ' October 18, 1989 Page 8 ' However, we are concerned with several aspects of the center with regards to parking for several reasons as follows : - grocery stores can generate unusually high parking demand. - if restaurants occupy signficant areas of the building, parking requirements could also jump, and ' - there are two areas where the parking provisions should be revised in a way that will unfortunately eliminate several ' stalls. The parking area serving the Vet Clinic is a dead end aisle that requires provision of a turn around area that will eliminate two stalls. Most of the 13 stalls that are illustrated on the east side of the future grocery expan- sion are hazardous. Cars backing out of them will back into drive aisles that have several turns and poor sight lines. While staff believes that parking provisions could be made to be adequate, we feel that several conditions are required to provide adequate assurances . These include: 1. All leases should require employee parking to be located at the rear of the building. 2. Site plan review should be required for any restaurants pro- posed to be located in the center. A parking analysis will be required before approval can be required. The 2,284 ' square foot restaurant space located at the north end of the center is excluded from this requirement. Parking calculations do not include requirements for Outlot "A" ' since no uses have been proposed. It is expected that parking provisions for Outlot A will be consistent with ordinance requirements whenever a site plan approval is requested. For the ' center to function properly, cross access and parking easements should be filed over the shopping center parcel and Outlot A running in favor of each lot. ' LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan has been revised extensively to comply with previous recommendations and is generally acceptable. Staff has only two modifications we would like to see incorporated. ' 1. A continuing concern throughout the design process has been the rear view of the center from Hwy. 5. The rear elevations have been improved but we remain concerned with the level of ' screening provided to avoid direct views of loading docks, truck parking and trash storage areas. While the landscaping plan has been improved in this area, we believe that the installation of 6 foot high conifers in this area is inade- quate. We are recommending that the height at installation should be 10-12 feet. II Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 I Page 9 2. A snow storage area is illustrated at the southeast corner of I the site along Market Boulevard. We believe this is inappropriate considering that the first view many people would have upon entering the city is a pile of dirty snow. I The designation should be deleted and the area filled with compatible landscape material. Unlike most metro area communities, Chanhassen does not now have I a requirement for financial guarantees for landscaping improve- ments. Staff has raised this concern to the Planning Commission who indicated a desire to have the ordinance amended to cover I this omission. Staff is recommending that the PUD agreement include a requirement that a financial guarantee be provided to insure that landscaping is properly installed in a timely manner. I The guarantee should equal 110% of the estimated cost of the material and be valid for one full growing season past the date of installation. GRADING/DRAINAGE II The site will drain into a storm sewer system that outlets into I a city owned pond located to the south. The 72" storm sewer will be installed by the developer and the development contract should clearly state this requirement. The pond was designed to perform I as a retention pond for the downtown area. Thus a skimmer device as requested by the City Council is not required. Drainage calcu- lations have been provided and are currently being reviewed by the City' s consultant. The existing catch basin adjacent to Manhole I #21 in Market Boulevard should be relocated into the new curb radius. Project approval by the Riley Creek Watershed District is required. I Prior to issuance of any building permits, a detailed erosion control plan acceptable to the city and the Watershed District shall be prepared. I UTILITIES Final utility plans should be prepared for approval by the city. I The sanitary sewer plan requires that an existing 10" line that bisects the site be located under the new building. Staff will II support the proposal only if it is constructed as follows: a. The existing 10 inch PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing which clearly extends 10 I feet beyond the limits of any building footings or sidewalk with manholes built at each end of the casing to provide access. The sewer main must be properly blocked and encased II in the ductile iron casing, i .e. , grouted or pea rock. Water plans are generally acceptable with some modifications. II The existing watermain to be abandoned should be removed from the II i . Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 Page 10 site. Since the existing public utilities are proposed to be relo- cated and turn lanes constructed, the applicant shall submit detailed roadway and utility construction plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer. Roadway utility specifications ' should comply with the City of Chanhassen' s specifications. As- built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. ' SIGNAGE/LIGHTING As with other aspects of the proposal, signage has been modified ' from the original plan. The current plan calls for a total of 3 monument signs. One on West 78th, one on Market Boulevard and, based upon Planning Commission recommendation, a third monument ' will be reserved for Outlot A. Although no details are provided for the Outlot A sign, it should be identical to the others. The monuments are 14 ' tall with 41 square feet of sign area per face. The signs are attractively designed to reflect the architectural ' design of the shopping center. All other site signage is to be located on the buildings. Front ' elevation signs use 2 foot high lighted letters with similar signage in the rear elevations and both ends of the building. Staff has discussed allowing larger signage of similar design for ' major shopping center tenants. We believe it is reasonable to do so and are recommending that letters up to 5 feet in height be allowed on these stores having gabled entrances and rear eleva- tions . These stores should have their sign boards restricted to ' the gable areas with signs on other elevations prohibited. No details are provided for the free standing Vet Clinic and dry cleaner buildings but they should be restricted to 2 foot high ' lighted signs on the north and south elevations . Super Value has separate sign provisions in recognition of their being the major tenant. The ordinance does not provide standards for PUD signage as such, however, it allows the city to establish suitable requirements. We believe the illustrated site plan is acceptable with the modi- fications proposed above and are recommending that they be prepared as sign covenants that will be attached to the PUD agreement. ' Lighting details were recently provided for staff review and area acceptable with some modifications. Staff' s original intent was to have the lighting be as compatible as possible with other CBD lighting. Two types of fixtures are proposed. The first is a 17 ' foot high ornamental type offering an antique appearance. The second is a 32i foot high box fixture designed to light large areas. It is our desire to have lighting on the project' s ' exterior use the lower scale, more compatible fixture. Thus we are recommending that the 3 fixtures located east of the super market and one located between the two Market Boulevard curb cuts ' be exchanged for the ornamental lights. We believe that the revised overall lighting scheme will provide adequate coverage. Rezoning for Market Square • , October 18, 1989 Page 11 i SUBDIVISION/EASEMENTS/RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION The applicants are requesting subdivision approval and vacation ' of excess right-of-way along West 78th Street and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. However, the plat is being revised to comply with previous stipulations and and is not available for eview at this time. Staff expects to bring the revised plat to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. The plat will illustrate the following: - West 78th Street vacation of excess right-of-way. The city will seek to maintain an 80 foot wide right-of-way. - Easements for: °public utilities and drainage improvements °public sidewalks °cross access and parking for all lots, and - Division of the site to separate lots and Outlot A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that PUD Development Stage approval for Market Square be approved subject to teh following conditions: 1 . Enter into a PUD contact with the city that will contain all of the conditions of approval and which will be recorded against all lots platted in the project. The PUD agreement should provide for a landscape bond as outlined in the staff report. 2. Obtain final plat approval for the site prior to requesting ' building permits. 3 . Enter into a development contract with the city that requires ' financial sureties with construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council for all public improve- ments. ' 4 . Revise architectural plans as need to: - confirm that the Vet Clinic will have windows on the north and west elevations; - trash enclosures are to be constructed from rock faced block compatible with the main building; - relocate the trash enclosure serving the dry cleaner to the west side of the building or incorporate it into the struc- ture; - outdoor storage areas are to be enclosed by a rock faced block wall; - the trash compactor is to be provided with a rock faced block screen wall and relocated to the north to provide a 24' wide drive aisle; and Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 12 - the addition of any drive-up windows will require site plan ' approval wherein it will be the applicant' s responsibility to demonstrate that internal circulation patterns and parking provisions will not be impacted. ' 5 . Outlot A is required to have buildings designed to utilize architecture compatible with the shopping center. No addi- tional access will be provided to serve Outlot A. Only one additional monument sign is to be allowed when the outlot is developed. The sign must be identical to monument signage allowed elsewhere on the PUD. Until development occurs, the ' owner shall establish ground cover over the site and keep it in a maintained condition. Parking requirements for the outlot should be satisfied on it. 6 . Modify and or regulate access and parking as follows: - provide a triangular traffic island in the West 78th Street ' curb cut; - delete the sidewalk south of the crosswalk that connects to the sidewalk in front of the super market. A pedestrian crosswalk shall be installed on Market Boulevard adajacent to the bus shelter. The crosswalk shall be painted and signed in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Manual on Traffic Controls; - eliminate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side of the super market expansion and modify the Vet Clinic parking area to provide a turning space at the end of the ' aisle; - all leases for the main building should require that employee parking be located at the rear of the center; and - any restaurants proposed in the center are subject to a ' site plan review procedure. It will be the applicant' s responsibility to demonstrate parking adequacy if it is to be approved. The restaurant spaces illustrated in the two northern tenant spaces in the main building are exempt from this requirement; and - all parking lot curbing shall be B-6/12 concrete. ' 7. The landscaping plan should be modified as follows: - increase the size of conifers along the south property line from 6 ' to 10-12 ' ; and ' - remove the snow storage area along Market Boulevard and landscape the space. 8 . Provide final grading and drainage plans for approval. The plans should incorporate the following: - the 72" storm sewer is to be installed by the developer; Installation of the line should be covered by the develop- ment contract. The city can reasonably allow building per- mits to be issued with the understanding that the 72" storm sewer, together with other public roadway and utility improvements, will be installed simultaneously with the construction of the buildings; I I/ Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 Page 13 - the existing catch basin adjacent to Manhole #21 in Market ' Boulevard should be relocated into the new curb radius; - project approval by the Watershed District is required prior to building permit issuance; and - an erosion control plan acceptable to the city should be submitted prior to requesting building permits. 9 . Provide final roadway and utility plans for approval. The 1 existing 10" PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an over- sized ductile iron casing acceptable to the city. Existing watermains to be abandoned shall be removed. The applicant will submit detailed construction plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer and provide as-built mylar plans upon completion of construction. i 10. Provide written and graphic sign covenants consistent with the description in the October 23, 1989, staff report. The covenants will be filed with the PUD contract. 11. Review the site lighting plan to use the ornamental fixtures east of the super market and between the two Market Boulevard curb cuts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Market Square Plan Package - Sheets P-1 - P-C dated October 13 , 1989 2 . Market Square Site Phasing Plan - P-8 dated October 17, 1989. 3. Update Market Square Rendering. 4 . Updated memo from the Engineering Department dated October 19, 1989. 5. Planning Commission minutes dated September 20 , 1989. 6 . Previous staff reports. i I I I -___...________j L-•----..--.________ I law Ian NW ! 1 kra giMil.Firt! lin I laMil II 'Alm iih.. .h. 4%,,,,, 3 I r r I.�I�„`'■ Mari /1441t.3c APF 1 a I I w 411 tle /' I if 1' i 6- . I 2 _ � Ai.; sli: I 1 _ n Wiis' I 'y ■ �r $ ',,., I �- OM GM an r�1 to IMI a � 1111 r 1 _..„ im, .._ 0 1—. �1— —1 _ it '�L�i; _ • , IL1II i,... im ir i i .1. I 1 I sit V -Li ` �• _ _ r Iii. � _� am IV V/ II wwewer 1.:. s I ' =Me SEW iwwc s :-_- °' : -- sstN _s .4/g2 ■ j 111 I II . ai I MEW SIM PUIN t saw! I I ■ Ildr ME Mar L----- I 2 47.."`•`6.1-7-7-- .1 -,K.0"-, . 1 7(.-: C. --. imill".""irt Ilir ;), 1111111111 ' CV -2 2 0 ihi i:11,1 4 . „ , ...,,,. /61111Mil,: L...._ ____ 1 ii.,.04 _ - , , i - 1 _____ 1 , ,...,. . oe " di I awn.. o° alb • .4 UNINICoN4 L I • , . , , I i . ___ -- °IL / il,! ,. ....., It 1 I J Pr — — I ICI ' E' 1 1 Th - GO • -*- It- *- S O. .I., a _ • I . tt II Q ■ IV I I 6\ I ill se• lap me• ., . yr' 4:.6 r r s. a 4 o rilS.L... .°1E451ii I I I 1 1 8t4CI —--— - - ....P.- I 1 . I 0. L _ _ _J-D r, I ON ,- -----11 . • 1 1 ., ..1r. ., --- '.. , ic° 1 — ■—, . •'',.4 ‘eli -.1"- • 2-- ' ..-1,,,, I WV X.0 dO00.111.11.1. I tJANDIMAIIMMI 1•.W-Cr I I . ' I r - i Li I I:- I:nr : li �Y II - I •1 Ill IOC IN_ 411 11 'IFS w ._' ' E I rl ■ ; I = J ; IV-- I It gin i I _` M j I _ i �,ia t INS I I — `l Mr - I) ! if ■i ■�'M 'NM : I; : I se 1111 si■ iii n. I 1 I t Y - I IC - N MB, lit - al 1 NB i i�� : : ' !-fr... - I P I - i, 1 it e r: dl Ii ' I I I 1 .: ,: 1 P 1 'r 1 1-... I „Ig. I < - ! < . a . 1 k • 0 . . ,e 111111111e MI, 111 < WI E B3 1 15 1 II■■■■• I i litirriMi ' 7, -1 _MIIII'' in p, g i! No • z * ail m1.11.,,h,::....... > ue •Ii!olv,_\ __,... i l, \III ! . _ .....r..... r ...... i I ir„, lit ....C NI, H - - - ',.... •• / 1 111 1 , i "ii, III III I ii hial 11 . I I-1 MK 1. I 1 I 6 I • < - m I IF 1.71.IIM * I a". < ... ••• CI r .mal. ii . m - P 7. O i ...- .,.... ,-- I .. .-,f. i .... rj i — = X * IBM...411111.1!, 7,;' 11-462;40 " rr, 4 ... in --7- --'),*, via& 1 -, ri i. --..1 - WI, -i• Till 1 .- - . • - , ....: \_. , . I _ , ...., 'L Ell 1 NMI., Ii ■ . r --- It l;.1p, ........ ,., ar-,4•11.,,,-, \ II I : .1. , :... I. I 1 I I 1, / IMMI■li iNt le lb NM -T. A is.A.._ .....:,. , _ , , = ' 1 ....---■, , . v 1 = ,.. ,,, i ,. , . < .... .1■I U ■ * 141. E 0 7E 0.2 Zi n1."4:.i, kIVLl■.II!.I 1n 7‘1\,1.;'gI",-1----f-.-.7r--A.:..-\1.A.v ..• vV1M11s 4i".7lr„:-1...\04./0•.1..:.7-._.„11....10..:4....:'.-1v-7'11:.-,_.:.f':'.",4., t.1 'P 111 1,I'i1h111r ra1ra1,i P;'P1 1"T0kN,...,./'.‘.": 1 7 / \ \ 1■=-=1=I1I1■-._.._.-11...1 i-.-O rir. :.f-•/a-..a K ffii_l 1g I i7_- .7 , — ‘f:----------% I 1= - • I • v t ir--- I- .-.- . r ..•,,,- — 4 13 I!—II r2. s I/ I /"-------■.1 r r V. S I> 1 I -1:1, ,:it : r, MARKET SQUARE . a - Biltgosehl ii: i:tii 011411111ASSIK MDINE1014 96,6 am V)•41..1411,11.11.1001141111111ft \:-...----- ! ‘1. ‘..—.••■••.." .., ‘. W.V.•smaill.61•■••■•••Im. „ — mim 1. I I I =WI ihr1111 1 __ MMEr - —Ii. �� • .,'! • _it X111 a I .4=1„ 1,r, ,„„ el, ....,..70.1—i 1 =7( III i r 1 . . { NM ... . 1t I = "El' I OP y 4IHIIN IN Ill I —Alk Iburr t �� in =IMPiort. imp I �p �n 1 1 I --- 1 I I II i / I I • .1 1 I i r 1 ' ' 1 z° .1.• m i '. \ 1 / I { i i . I I i 1 1 1 1 i / ? \ell 1 ,_, i E r' I ,I y /10 I=it" I I ' .1 1. is IF) '--: . �� ,N 1 i 11 • \ Ilbi tlt I I i.1 I ', i Vti ,f . % iii\ 1 iii 1 Li, i t‘V, 3 4 t,,,4 1 . , - 1 \,4 . 1 .t2'. ; i 1 . I • ppon�'-', , MARKET SQUARE A��11 I �I• ea j O� M�rwr. Owlwrl ___ - f 1 --• I I f" - en w mm n« . rev(e - . =/411 �,. . . r i 1r • Iiiii iiiib•N is.orao as --- ■ I I WT . = A r w ! "1 //4/ ii-41 It,: 2 / d . n r ; relit° - , ......,..5 , , , ,, u 1 ■ 111 I 1 ® • 1 _ )01°- _ ' ` j imisomm sur . I •11 M t ;1EJ:—Tw .-' r : - ira T 1 A fr It ..... iff 1.: r . = ,--) ,----,. neari 1011•••••••■ 111111C" \ 1 I - � __ 1 1 1 61'1 2 t iff ! : . it \ma 11 , , i It 1 a T 1 1 I\ L _ • ^w — �i �`�� I 14:1:..... -M �L ,, .� _r� �" ` OM GRADIN mot • � mum 1' I I .i J I I eaMP !. • M _. .6` ` t(1'•. : ' . i��., • 4) - : : C: . y I 1.c.1 : (11 : i i-- _L..- -. ..� . .—.y el I i 67:1 7 " fa 7 -0- * j ' : 0: : : ' /:, I , I - �c•' I fl• I i —�' r—.F" I- • ..i i . 4 I ‘ ; ; : . . . . ,. L i i I 774 \ . ../.. —••, j-- ...J -it ._ r i t i > 1 i '=' i_ ;WW1 W1 is ' it _ 11. ii:1: i:ill ie_ i:ii"ti 1i. [ t—i: i•2 t s G 0*-,:-t 'c 4 : {i i - (,;A, it d: i=ii t i if; i ili , giilil is i :hill lit i '- '� "s _ i I t "i �� asi t "MI i! I t -'III! t � i a 10 i 1 11 iill f II I k.11 1111 lief: i II illi 69!41 -F1 :iii`. .imioili"i•�•f=3. 0 , Oittlitttiiiiiiitts e p& ittittttitttttit€£S£ i 1 III { 9t•! 1 it . .FiE iit2tiitasI. i i t:Et e::itttirt:t:ifps• s Miitttt tiffffftir =:_i Sti'ttlIT 'tttiiiEi F' f _t_ t ii -I _ i ii: ' iiiiitt stfittitit ": 4 1 tttiiiiiiiiiiiiiI t i i • S . 1 1 .it EVIiiittiiiiil Q A • { 0.}t.tiittiiti071.7 •y t IT s :::....o• ^! I .i _ . is a EE ft i) Pam E iit::• Lti::6 - "NI t i•iisit;ii!”?•;:.1 i' ill tq C f Wilitiliggittgigiii t4 f; t. • lika tif:i 1 '-t i Lii Stiitttii�•- 'h C tttttttittiti t aattatustst ;, uetltttt:ttttist -1 11 inissttette:itset i • It. asssifftiisfitst IN _: -araiiiitttitittttttf 1 �..... ...iii • r" ' 1[ ( -----.-■ ormso i I MARKET SQUARE A t etut. .Ot 0•� t O~�t.tNlJt , S.e , CITY OF 4' JY" CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: ?aul Krauss , Planning Director �.0 FROM: ve Hemp 1 , Sr. Engineering Tecunician 1 DATE: October 18 , 1989 SUBJ: Review of Revised Plans for Market Square File No. 89-16 Land Use Review Upon review of the revised plans for Market Square development dated October 13, 1989 prepared by AMCON, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Site Plan (Sheet P-1) 1 1. The plans propose a right-of-way of approximately 70 feet for West 78th Street and reducing down to approximately 60 feet at Monterey Drive. The City desires to maintain a uniform 1 80-foot wide right-of-way throughout West 78th Street as pre- viously preserved in the downtown redevelopment project. ' 2 . The plans shall include a concrete island median at the access point to Market Square from West 78th Street as pre- viously agreed to. ' 3. The location of the trash compactor behind the grocery store limits the traffic lanes behind the shopping center to 20 feet wide. The trash compactor needs to be moved towards the building to give adequate traffic lanes of 24 feet. 4 . Appropriate traffic signage should be installed on the one- way 1 streets together with island delineators at the access points to the shopping center. 5 . This site will generate considerable pedestrian traffic to 1 and from the site. From a traffic safety standpoint, it is desirable to install a pedestrian crossing on Market Boulevard in the area of the bus shelter. The pedestrian ' crossing should consist of the typical signage and striping. In the future, when traffic volume dictactes, the City will need to address installing pedestrian-activated flashers at this location. 6 . The plans shall include B-612 concrete barrier curb con- sistent with City Ordinances. 1 Paul Krauss October 18 , 1989 ' Page 2 Civil Plan (Sheet P-2) ' 1 . The existing watermain to be abandoned shall be removed from the site. 2 . The existing public utilities are proposed to be relocated and turn lanes constructed. The applicant shall submit separate from any building plans, detailed roadway and uti- lity construction plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer . Roadway and utility specifications should comply with the City of Chanhassen' s specifications . As- built mylar plans will for all public utilities shall also be provided upon completion of the construction. 3. BRW will be reviewing the storm sewer calculations submitted to determine adequacy in the system and compatibility with the downstream ponding facilities. ' 4 . The existing catch basin adjacent to manhole #21 in Market Boulevard should be relocated into the new curb radius at the entrance to Market Square. 5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. The 72-inch storm sewer , together with roadway and utility improvements, shall be installed simultaneously with the initiation of any building construction on the site . Erosion Control An erosion control plan for the development was not included for review. A detailed erosion control plan should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. , 1 . The applicant shall receive Watershed District approval before the issuance of any building permits. c: Gary Ehret, BRW Gary Warren, City Engineer ' 1 1 r ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen , Senio) Planner 1 PUBLIC HEARING: ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL - FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 12 ACR: OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNE' OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. Public Present : Name Address ' Fred Hoisington Consultant Herb Bloomberg Bloomberg Companies John Rice Attorney for Bloomberg Companies Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies Dr . Bonnett Veterinary Clinic Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Bill Brisley AMCON f Todd Kristoferson AMCON Jim Winkles Applicant Rick Martins Marcor Development Jo Ann Olsen and Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing 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 wa' 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. Ai 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 her( 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 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 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 peoplh here, and then we 'd like to address the recommendations of the planning 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 Brisle' ' L Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 2 1 ' Bill . Bill Brisley: Thank you very much. My name is Bill Brisley. I am the project architect for Market Square. I work for AMCON Corporation and the ' 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 believe 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 the staff and many people on the development team. What I have rendered from all this testimony in terms of architecture for Market Square shopping center is that there is a unifying composition which has gone on before it ' Chanhassen and there should be an integration by any design which is yet t come. What I think might summarize this is an image of a town style where shops are on a main street, friendly to the pedestrian. Warm and+ invitinc in it ' s setting . A town style that is fresh and unique and yet clearly 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 I feel very comfortable noting that because of the varied input and concern 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 will not only be compatible with the community but be an asset to it's future development. I feel that this current design is the synthesis of all the varied stylistic concerns and yet is consistent and a cohesive solution tc I the important community issue. I also believe that the drawings and 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 now describe the design. The building massing is organized to minimize the negative effects of a very long building with basically the same type of use the full length. Large anchor buildings will be 20 feet high and ' pulled forward. The shorter infill buildings between the larger building: 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 stuccc ' 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 and 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 a 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 on 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 medallions I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 3 II 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 fixtIVE with it' s illumination focused downward. This same light fixture will al: be found over each rear entry tenant door. The stucco building fronts _ be articulated with recessed panels painted darker shades of gray to enhance their depth and sculptural impact. All shop fronts will be cle 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 Ir 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 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 sket E and the one in the colored version that I 've passed around which I migh c 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 cris crossing the opening. At the intersection of these tubes will be a 16 x inch painted steel frame holding a medallion of similar ceramic tile fo- 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 be glowing from uplighting within. The effect creating sillouettes of It E suspended medallions. The lowest portion of the diamond opening will sti be 5' 4" off the surface of the roof providing the necessary parapet for mechanical screening. This construction will extend back 24 feet from 111` 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 the sketches to understand what we're talking about. A similar screen at t back wall will be 4 feet at the side walls and extend 12 feet forward int( the building terminating into another stepped and gabled parapet wall a' 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 r 1 will be kept forward in the front half of the building and will be screiE 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 exte E the gabled roof as requested by the City for aesthetic reasons. Much wil: 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 feet would meet the back wall at 14 ' 8" . This 9' 4" drop would look awkw c at best. I believe that the City's interest lie in having a well compo c and interesting roof line with interacting shapes and gables for the long distance views. This design meets that need very well. Are there any II questions? II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 4 I Conrad: Are there questions on what has been presented tonight versus whz ' was in the kit? I 'm having 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 the: ' 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 the ' only difference. Conrad: So the diamond type? Bill Brisley: The diamond . That is the thing that ' s different . And 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 . 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 structure. You' ll see the ribbing. ' 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. ' Erhart: Okay, and why did you change from what was on the big drawings tc 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 t t 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 versu 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 b 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 bo ( cinderblock box from the TH 5 side which will be very visible. We came with the idea then of asking that that roof feature be carried through so) 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 o the north from TH 5, it will appear as though there is that vault up th E We haven' t seen a real perspective of how that works but that may get o - 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 is a clear elevation. . .but the grocery store has a very different one. 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 hay four more. Drug store, hardward store. . . Erhart : Drug store, video, Lotus Body Shop. I I Planning Commission Meeting September - Page 6 Krauss : Is the tile feature and the lighting effects that are produced or 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 too low. That' s only possible because of the amount of parapets I have there. ' If I didn' t have the back. . .but the tile will be there in back. It will I actually more like what the other design was. The back still looks like that. ' Erhart: Was this original drawing, those were going to be false fronts? ' Krauss: Yes. 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. Olsen: But even in the old one. ' Bill Brisley: There must have been a misunderstanding because I 've always 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 pleasE with the way it ' s turned out . Erhart: Is there anything else like this in the Twin Cities? 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 is not. . . Emmings: You talked about the mechanical units. During your presentatior ' 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 feet higher than the roof. Emmings: So they're screened from the front. How about from TH 5? 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 be just painted a very light gray to match the parapet wall behind it so say 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. . . 1 I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 7 Emmings: It seems to me that whenever we' ve done buildings we've alway said that mechanical units have to be completely screened . Does this milt that? Whatever that means? Olsen: As long as it' s not real visual . What we usually get then to hit( 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 wil' serve the purpose. Emmings: Okay, so you're satisfied with this? Olsen: Well I still haven't really seen anything that shows what tell looking at. Emmings: Should there be something that, is that one of the things thall you're requesting? Erhart: A color rendering of it? Olsen: The elevations to show. Emmings: So on those elevations the mechanical units should be present : opposed to what we' re. . . Olsen: To show how they' re going to be screened. 1 Emmings: Okay. 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 one. 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 visibl( Bill Brisley: We have quite a few views there already. I could add 5 II more to it. Olsen: But you don' t have anything from, do you have something from THI' 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 actuall look like. Olsen: So is the mechanical equipment on here and it wouldn' t be seen all? 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 building looks like? ' 1 • Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 8 11 ' Bill Brisley: Not from the northwest. Olsen: Do you have any rear buildings on here? ' Bill Brisley: No I didn' t because I haven' t, in this particular program, I have not developed the back. . .Really the detail comes from this straight line elevation. Conrad : The awnings are fabric or metal? Bill Brisley: The awnings are fabric. Conrad : Lighted did you say? ' Bill Brisley: No. . . Conrad: What' s the lighting for the front of the building? Bill Brisley: It's all individual. It' s really. . .off of these 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? Bill Brisley: There's a metal roof over the, when the gables are made out 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. . . 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. The roof itself, the standing seam roof will be. . .structured of tube steel and 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 the inside of this stucco wall that' s articulated with the. . . It's part of tt• mechanical . You really won' t be able to see it. Erhart: According to this picture you can see it. From this view you car see the posts. Bill Brisley: You mean the vertical? Horizontal? Erhart: Yeah. You can see the posts that holds up the rear of the roof. ' Bill Brisley: I want that to show. 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 9 Erhart: Do you? 1 Bill Brisley: Yes definitely. That' s what holds the medallion in the middle. ' Erhart: No, I 'm talking about the post on the rear part right in there. Is that a post holding this roof up? I Bill Brisley: No. That' s the wall . Erhart: So this just isn't hanging out in space? I 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 sit: 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. I 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 ten P g P of. .. Erhart: Separate building as opposed to having it incorporated within ILE shopping center . Bill Brisley: I can' t really answer that . ' I Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 10 Brad Johnson: The concept that we' re working on is that the ownership of the center , what you see here, will be under one roof. Then the balance c 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 pretty standard on a lot of shopping centers like at Rainbow and places like that 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 see 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 absorptior here, we have to have some ownership available because there isn' t enough 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 somebod: ' and then you come back and go through this process for that specific building . The application you have, because Dr . Bonnett is here and has done successfully in, how many veterinary clinics have you built so far? ' Dr. Bonnett : Five. Brad Johnson: Five of them. All of which are the best veterinary clinic: ' in the city. That particular building he wants to own and they approaches 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 PUD we' ll determine that this will ' exist . You probably see this on every shopping center and quite a. . . the 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 . Erhart : There' s no problem having a restaurant next to a veterinary ' clinic? Brad Johnson: No. And that happens to be right across the street from ti institutional . . . Everybody's trying to be a little of retail now. Get high visibility. Banks are. Things like that. You have one right across from Southdale? Veterinary clinic? ' Dr. Bonnett : Southdale. There' s one right down here right across from tY Eden Prairie Center there. And there's a restaurant right beside it. Brad Johnson: So that' s pretty common. At least for the veterinarys in town, they all want to buy his site later on because he's done such a gooc 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 franchise veterinary. . . 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 11 II Conrad: Any other questions of Bill at this time? 1 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 an actual step down. When you go from one level to the next. This is III 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 w c 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 rat that goes from that high point at the transition, out and around and ba 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 anoth 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 goii onto the sidewalk in many places and that is. . . Conrad: I'm interested in the furthest part north. You really don' t hItE 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 II good statement to make yet there' s nothing there. Bill Brisley: That particular building is finished all the way around ( same as if it were the front . There really isn' t a back to that buildi That is because of that position that it's in. Which just kind of happen: to be where that 's where part of that retail fell and the first anchor 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 1'E 300 feet? Bill Brisley: Looking at the site plan , we have really. . . I don' t realli think it's going to feel like a very long, straight building. There' s going to be a lot of shadow lines . A lot of different materials. A lot c different heights. It's going to step down the whole site. It's realli quite varied . Conrad: What is the elevation, and maybe this is. From the north look' c at the end of that building, where's the elevation on what we' re lookin at? Bill Brisley: I'm not sure I follow you. I Conrad: That would be the drive thru that's been proposed? Bill Brisley: Yes. It's not drawn. . . I Conrad: I don't know if I agree with you because West 78th where all t traffic is and it seems like a way to get people in so I 'm not sure I a E II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 12 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 norti face there. I don' t know. I agree. Initially when you first install thi: 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 softens whatever you're going to be looking at anyway. Conrad : I 'm curious about the backside of that unit because I don' t want ' the backside to look like the backside of the rest of it. I really and a. the way through, in talking to Brad, what we' re doing is backing up a maj( shopping center to a road and it's pretty, you soften it a great deal sin( 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 sid( 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? 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 Monterey and it shows on 78th. I don' t think that' s what I would want if I were a restaurant owner. I 'm not sure that that's what I would want as a plannii 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 kind of feedback from anybody here. Is there any feedback specifically on what you've 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 parkinc on the east side still future parking? ' Bill Brisley: Yes it is. Those lines are still dotted. Batzli : Oh, those are dotted on there? ' Bill Brisley: Yes. Conrad : Brad, do you want to get into the next part of your? 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 proceec to this date. We've had a plan that we've certainly had some costs added r to and we're working hard to make our numbers work to adjust our proformei 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 or Planning Commission Meeting , September 20, 1989 - Page 13 II for the project. We want to have Brad come up and discuss some issues c a leasing and marketing point of view and Bill come back and discuss so 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 toll lease so issues of circulation and access and signage and so on are ver important to the ultimate success of this project so any cooperation or assistance you can give us certainly would be appreciated. If you want c mark this down, just to make it easy, we have gone through and we will you the points in the staff report that we concur with. Then Brad and _ 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 II believe. Emmings: Are you on page 9 are you? II 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 witil 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 wit 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 wil 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 issu( 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, t 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 tilt this is just a general thing, are tough to handle because we also have figure out how to get circulation back there and loading and things like that. Because however people are choosing that site as tenants, such a Super Value, they're choosing it because of visibility and the last thi think both the City, the tenants and the developer want to have happen 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, E want to make it good. One of our problems is, it does rise 30-40 feet bac) there and it's difficult, it's just a different kind of a situation thall you have to deal with but I think our interests are the same. Then Lad to address your questions about the cap on the north end . We don' t have tenant yet for that particular location and if it was a restaurant, It obviously it'd be all windows. See it would change. Right now we have c idea what that end will look like as far as a tendancy. We have some i that we'll deal with as we go through the process but until we get a tenar 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 . W just don't know what the tenant is going to be. II II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 14 Conrad : Brad , I just think it' s a missed opportunity. The way I see it ' designed 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 le: expensive. They want bigger piece. There's no parking there. We have stacking . We've already addressed . It' s just an interesting problem whic ' we're going to address so I 'm just speaking that it's not done in that are 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 sure of that but right now we don' t have anybody. As far as vacation, let' s gc through the items. I 've got a certain selection of items that I 'm suppos( to deal with. One is the vacation of a portion of 78th Street for ' right-of-way purposes. Emmings : Give us a number . Brad Johnson: Number 2. I 'm just going to go right down but of course yc don't have my crib sheet. Mine say Brad. Your ' s don't say that. We wou: 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 ther that would count into our total size of our lot and it makes it easier for 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 Outic A would be accessed. . . Erhart : Excuse me Brad but isn' t that the same reason that you wanted the sidewalk easement? Brad Johnson: Yes . That' s right . Exactly right . Krauss: Should we respond to these things? Conrad : Yeah. Headla : Yeah, you looked like you wanted to say something. ' Krauss: Our concern with that is, the way we've proposed it, there's goir 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 . To 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 vacate. Erhart: Your reason for wanting an easement, to use the total land area i calculations of coverage and so forth? ' Brad Johnson: Coverage. Sale. Whatever . i Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 15 Erhart: And that' s part of the PUD. You already exceed the coverage. II Brad Johnson: Setback requirements . Erhart: You already exceed the coverage and we' re willing to give that: part of the PUD anyway. Conrad : I think setback is more of an issue. I 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 aII you have and there' s a 25 foot setback requirement there. I 'm just sayinc_ that' s our opinion. 79th Street is owned privately as an easement to tip City and the City maintains it. This is done in the City quite a bit. II I own the street and . . . Ellson: Is there any other portion of West 78th Street that' s done thill way? Olsen: Not that I know of. I 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. A far as Outlot A is concerned , only access internally. We can ' t, at thi� 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 we're going to have or owner of that site and secondly, that site is go c 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 tc 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/1c 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? I 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 Ic doing that at all . We just can't have that happen at this point. Clay r 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 II anything like that to base that decision on. So we just don' t agree wi that one. II II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 16 I Krauss : In making that proposal , we base that on traffic safety concerns . ' There' s going to be a lot of turning movements into and out of that centei 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 north, what if those people want to turn to the north? They' re going to have to 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 tY overall PUD and should function as such. It was our perspective. It' s gc very good access on two sides. It has very good visibility all around anc we felt that the additional access that' s being proposed is hazardous . ' Yeah, we could do additional design studies or have a traffic engineer do 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 which 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 thz 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 of ' stacking and that type of thing but we do not feel that the PUD agreement 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 lookE II - at that center has an interest in that and it' s not a McDonalds or anythir 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. ' Emmings : Who uses drive thrus other than McDonalds and banks? Brad Johnson: Yougart 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 anc 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. TY rest of the center is just too deep to do that type of thing. So we've gc 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 abot 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. ' Conrad : Paul , was your concern stacking distance on this or were there other concerns? 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 17 11 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 aroun 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 olL traffic that piles up, piles up in the main drive aisle of the center. way of a compromise I supposed we'd be willing to review a site plan at some time in the future that they might propose even if it's an extreme minor type of pick up use. Consider allowing that specific use but we asked for some resolution of this in the last few meetings and there hasn been any and we're still quite concerned with it. Conrad: Tell me potentially on the west side, if they put a drive up II window on the west side. On the northwest side rather than on the northeast side, is that a possibility? If the drive thru basically stair, from off of Monterey versus coming in from 78th? Krauss: It could give you a longer stacking distance and help solve th Conrad : It might be a possibility? I 'm not sure I like coming in off 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 wrong side so I 'm not sure that's the right place for a drive thru ther 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 sayin1 Conrad : How could you do that though Brad? How could you have, so your( basically saying that is a one way traffic? Brad Johnson: Yeah. That' s what it is. It's indicated to be one way. All we're saying is we think we can come back with some plans for youjf that whole thing . We don' t happen to have the tenant currently. We ha heard that we should remain within a reasonable stacking so it won't be Hardee's with a reader board and it won' t be somebody probably that would it'd be more of a pick-up situation than somebody that we plan on stack c because you're right, there's not enough room. We' re just asking that ' 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 stac ' r 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 to come back for a plan review but. . . Conrad : Conceptually it's a tough one to bite off Brad if you could soli( that problem. 11 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 18 11 Brad Johnson: If we can' t solve it, then we won' t do it because it won' t be good for the tenant either. If a tenant's going to do this, he's goinc to 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 type of businesses and he' s going to want to be successful and one things that wouldn' t make him successful is if people couldn't get in there because o: stacking . It'd make them angry. There' s plenty of other sites where the could go in town possibly to have drive thrus if they wanted to. So that ' our opinion on that one. Moving right along , item 14. Relative to the 7: inch storm sewer along. Elison: Weren' t you going to do 9? Brad Johnson: I'm not going to handle 9. Crib sheet. 72 inch storm sew( ' along the south property. Two problems we have in here. We' re not sure want to pay for it but we' re not saying we won' t. We think it' s needed al 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 we ' should be required to have that installed before we start any constructiol on the site. There' s got to be some other way of doing that. Or does th, mean we've got to go in and put the storm sewer in before we break ground Dr. Bonnett for example' s ready to break ground tomorrow, or as soon as w( 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 it ' 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 would ' pay for that and this is new that we have to have it installed before we pull a permit. ' Krauss : As to who's going to pay for it, we' re really not in the positiot to argue one way or the other . The engineering department and our input has led us to believe that it would be the developer ' s obligation. Howev( 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 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 or 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 car contact the engineer further and see if there' s some area of the site. The veterinary clinic is quite a ways from there and possibly that could start first but there is a definite conflict between the primary building and tt pond. 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 lone as it can drain that way and we feel that we could constructing the center 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' re just saying , for that to be installed first, let's say we're going to star I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Pagefq II this in March or something like that. It may delay the start of the ce E 2 to 3 months while we're getting that put in there. That's all . We' 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 the problem with doing it all at the same time? Krauss : Again, we understood there to be a conflict in that if there' s!' 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 dur c that brief week or 2 or 3 that they' re building that culvert. We have to have an alternate access poing of the water from the storm water . 1 Krauss : Some temporary diking possibly. That may be something that coulc be worked out. Clayton Johnson : The problem as I see it is uttin it uiremen c P 9 as a re q the PUD, really the land could be just as it is today. Dr. Bonnett cou be constructing his . . .property without that sewer being in and what we' objecting to is it being a requirement of the PUD. The economics of wh going to pay for it is an issue that has to be resolved within the HRA an our company because it was a part of the condemnation proceeding on tha' 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' partly working out with the engineering department and everybody else. ( we'd like to have you just say simply that we' re working that out or de e) 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. Probabli one of the most critical issues in marketing this whole site to a tenan 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 lilt this rather than enclosed malls simply is name identification and that E feel that they can control their own future versus being inside. And I'vE II always said this but if you watch the advent of the mall at TH 4 and TH , slowly but surely they're getting signs outside. Originally there were c signs. You go down and look at the Target store and all the signs down t 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 compaa such as Dominoes wants to advertise it's name and spend a million or 2 II million dollars a year, it wants it's sign on the building it's going to Y on. That's the key to it's success. Therefore we have to be as sensit' E to signage as possible. So we'd like to say this, that we would like tc� 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 v I identified . That's the look. We'd like to be able to put signs on the r 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 sil Super Value would face the tracks, face Market Square and face into thell II Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 20 I/ center . Whatever tenant that we have at the end of the north side would have the ability to put one on 78th, one on Monterey which would encourag< 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 that 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 idea. The hardware store is going to have a sign in the back. All those 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 the ' 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 we 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 be dangerous 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 tena• buildings. We understand the need to advertise and believe it' s a valid ' purpose. We've worked some on the sign plan for this center . The first monument signs that we were asked to review here were the size of Naegele billboards. The current monument signage is quite attractive and reasonably sized. We're looking at monument signage that does have some 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 signage goes, they're going to have signs front and back. Their advertising in 2 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 the Super Value logo as you come up from the south. It's on the back of the building . From the front of the building, you see the Super Value logo al ' 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 and TH 5, you' ll see that it's signed on 3 sides because that's logical in th< particular case because it was visible from TH 5 in two locations. We' re going to have two high traffic areas here. We' re going to have one, Markt 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 a good place for a sign as well as the front or back and that's what we' re requesting . I think if you go look around, you' ll see a lot of situation; 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? I Planning Commission Meeting II September 20, 1989 - Page 21 II Brad Johnson: The screening of the landscaping was designed not to hide the signs. 1 Batzli: So once you put the sign up there, it' s going to be very visible intentionally? II 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 . II Brad Johnson: The Super Value end it's going to be a relatively small il 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 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 and/or in the PUD agreement. Finally on the monument sign, we believe tha 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 profile. Would probably match what you have seen there. Not the high on 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 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 mall them successful so those are the issues that we'd like to have you addres 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 II 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 the parking lot lights is to match the lighting that has been done in the zest of the private developments in the downtown area. We would not like II to be restricted to matching the decorative lights which the City has 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 ill energy useage and in order to do that on a lot of this size, we need to ge 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 II 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. ' II ' , Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 22 I ' Emmings: I've got a question there. It ' s my understanding that this 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. Todd Kristoferson: We have not done a final lighting design of the site. ' 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. Batzli : What does 30 foot PML mean? Todd Kristoferson: Pole mounted light. Batzli : You haven't done a final study yet? Todd Kristoferson : Super Value has not done theirs . Normally Super 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 may not do? Ellson: Well we can tell them what. Conrad: What would be maximum. ' Elison : What other buildings are you saying you want them to conform with? 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. Batzli : Why do we have a 30 foot PML here if that's not what's going to happen? Is this just conceptual? 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 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. . . 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. I Planning Commission Meeting I September 20, 1989 - Page 23 11 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 int' 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 II 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 tt 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 II 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. ' 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 I 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 o 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 yo' 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 II the few previous meetings. 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 th 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. Conrad : How do you do that based on the different elevations from TH 5? II Do you take the worse possible scenario? The highest elevation? 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 24 Krauss: What you do as you illustrated, get you the topographic layou .. g 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? ' Krauss: Right. 1 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. 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 ' 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 ' 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. Nor are any of the other 25 issues on this list 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 to 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 tonight 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. It's just that sometimes we can only do what we can do and what the Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 25 I marketplace will let us do out there. Conrad: Good. Thanks . Any other comments? 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 II the recommendation number 3 on page 9 regarding the access to Outlot A. By way of prefacing what the position of Bl000mberg 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 ultimat 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 1 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 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 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 I 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 II 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 propert for the benefit of Lot 2 and for the benefit of Outlot A. Well now you se' 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 o 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 II 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 26 I 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 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. ' 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. 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 you'd like to, ' other issues that you'd like to discuss? 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 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 11 September 20, 1989 - Page 27 II intent there of the City? Is that City property? Is that going to be trees on there? Evergreen trees? Deciduous or what? II 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. I Erhart: Yeah. I mean there's some potential for additional screening fro 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 t 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. Erhart: Okay. The other thing not issued in the thing is how does one II 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? II Olsen: There will be sidewalks also along here. Erhart: Along the east side right now? 1 Olsen: Well they will be on both sides. IIErhart: Outlot A isn't going to have anything until it' s developed is tha right? Olsen: No. II Erhart: You're requiring a sidewalk at this time all along the west side II 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 till the building from certain sidewalks . Olsen: There will be sidewalks on West 78th Street and Market Blvd. . Therli 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 II from that store out to the West 78th? And is there a sidwalk there? Olsen: No. I 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 sidewal there. How do we get in from that sidewalk into the Super Value store. I 11 rC I TY O F P.C. DATE: Sept. 20, 1989 C.C. DATE: Oct. 9, 1989 r CUA1'?I1AE S �' CASE NO: 89-2 PUD Prepared by: Olsen/v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 IPROPOSAL: Development Stage for Commercial Planned Unit F. Market Square Ia V LOCATION; I Southwest Corner of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street 1 Q APPLICANT: Market Square Partnership AMCON 5775 Wayzata Blvd. , Suite 820 200 W. Hwy. 13 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Burnsville, MN 55337 1 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District 1 ACREAGE: 12.1 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IO and CBD; Chan Bank & Realtor/Dr. Office IQ S- BG; vacant E- CBD; Filly' s and Hotel Site 1 8 . W- BG; Lakeshore Equipment I [12 WATER AND SEWER: The site has services available 1 PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Currently a vacant level parcel. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ,li t!=iii 11; LA U 0 R / mini v's vow 41 i: , `c fik 111111 , i_ 17; co- -.16011 ' m: R SF � k,- A,• I i OP Vat1/440) NN I • 1111∎ �� N7.711/MM ...,,r.... I migi :kooks'"wibt ! nme.:.-■ . ___,-- R 1 ._ rs .. *OF 4.1E-1-4 .10- 01 R 1 - • , r !!...:.r" 4111" _40 R4 ac N i Irt IlcnT„!1r q4A ...v L E. R 1 2 01 - .. . ' .E: .0 ININ r R � � x .� .. .1=/ .G —�-- clit , im. Rips' up EVARD - Wiwi 1 _ al'� :WEI ��Alla :IL,J Lo .. BD IL° will_ 0.111 -. : R° 1;r moo`°�� jl ii � ti AcF •! BG Ala,„' '_r�, IGNWAY a• 11W?S: :I OP 01 V* , : �,P /'�j 1 * !metes ilim 1 i Il •Ant •44P.- \ /DAKO p Cj I it �INNEN CLAGLE -.416 o j LAKE SUSAN law `_J I co( RD 'w I ; W i o PUD R \\ .1 _ _ I _ ! 86 TM ST Pr 1 I . i _ Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 2 ' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-518 defines the development stage of a PUD. Following general concept approval of a PUD the applicant shall submit the development stage application, preliminary plat and fee. The development stage shall include but be limited to preliminary ' plat, site plan information including location, type and size of all graphics and signage and any additional information requested by staff, Planning Commission or City Council. ' BACKGROUND On August 2, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD con- cept plan for the Market Square commercial shopping center (Attachment #1) . The Planning Commission agreed that the site should be developed as a PUD and that the concept plans were ' moving in the right direction but that more amenities needed to be provided to the site such as additional architectural design, landscaping, etc. ' The City Council reviewed the concept plan on August 28, 1989 (Attachment #2) . The City Council also agreed that the PUD was the proper way to review the site. Since the August 28, 1989, ' Council meeting, the applicant presented a revised set of plans for staff review to proceed with the development stage (plans dated August 17, 1989) . Staff had several concerns with the ' revised plans and met with the applicant to review the issues (Attachment #3) . The applicant has submitted another revised set of plans dated September 11, 1989. Although there are still some issues unresolved, the plans are complete enough to proceed with the development stage. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to PUD to allow a commercial shopping center. The PUD designation is being pro- posed to allow the applicant to have increased lot coverage and mixed uses . The total area is 12.1 acres which includes a 1.6 acre outlot. The shopping center contains a grocery, drug, Lawn and Sports, liquor, hardware and retail stores. The proposal ' also includes an individual building housing a veterinary clinic on Lot 2, Block 1 . The total percentage of lot coverage, not including the outlot, is 79%. As a PUD the city will have the ability to request additional amenities to the site that would be above what would typically be required under the zoning ordinance. In addition, a PUD contract will be developed and recorded against both the shopping center site, the veterinary clinic lot and the outlot which will control what will occur on the site. The ability to have a PUD contract 1 Market Square Commercial PUD II September 20, 1989 Page 3 and the flexibility of the PUD allows the city to have more I control to ensure that the proposed shopping center will be an amenity to the city. I The current development plan review for the PUD includes the pro- posed shopping center located on Lot 1, Block 1, the veterinary II clinic located on Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot A which is proposed for future development. The PUD contract will cover Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 and Outlot A and will be recorded against each of those lots. I Outlot A Staff is recommending that Outlot A be a part of the overall PUD I so that certain controls can be maintained when Outlot A is pro- posed for development in the future. Such conditions would Iinclude the following: 1. Outlot A would have to be serviced internally and would not be permitted separate access points onto West 78th Street or II Market Boulevard. 2. Outlot A will not be permitted individual pylon or monument II signage. 3 . The construction of the buildings on Outlot A will be com- patible with the shopping center building and veterinary cli- ' nic. Veterinary Clinic I Page 5 of the submitted plans show elevations of the proposed veterinary clinic. The building will be made of brick and rock II face concrete block with a sloped roof with asphalt shingles . The clinic is providing adequate parking and is maintaining the typical setback of 25 feet. As with the outlot, the clinic will not be permitted its own separate pylon sign and will only be I permitted wall signage. The following comments are a consolidation of comments from II Planning and Engineering Staff, Fred Hoisington, Jim Lasher and Gary Ehret from the revised plans dated September 11, 1989. Site Plan - Page 1 II Access : I 1. The City has been maintaining a right-of-way of 80 feet along West 78th Street to accommodate the downtown redevelopment II II IF Market Square Commercial PUD 1 September 20, 1989 Page 4 , I plans. The applicant is proposing to vacate a portion of the right-of-way and staff will be processing this ROW vacation as part of the PUD application. Any ROW in excess of main- I taining the 40 feet from the centerline of West 78th Street may be vacated. A right turn lane will be required at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard and an acceleration lane is being shown on the plan as required I by staff. These two lanes should be combined into one con- tinuous lane (Attachment #4) . The developer must provide revised plans accommodating the future right turn lane and Iacceleration lane. 2. The access on Market Boulevard has not been widened beyond 12 feet. Staff had recommended that this be increased. I3 . The access points on Monterey are acceptable to staff. I 4 . The PUD contract will state that the outlot will be accessed internally and that it will not have any separate access points from West 78th Street or Market Boulevard. IPedestrian Circluation: 1. As part of the improvements to West 78th Street there are I plans to provide an 8 foot wide bituminous pathway along the south side of West 78th Street between Monterey Drive and Market Boulevard. The applicant is providing the 8 foot wide I trail on the south side of West 78th Street. The 8 foot wide trail shall be bituminous. The applicant has requested that the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway be located on their site I as an easement rather than having it as part of the right-of- way. Staff has agreed to this request. The PUD contract shall reflect that the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway will be accommodated by a trail easement and that the applicant will I be responsible for installing the 8 foot wide bituminous pathway as part of the site development. The development contract will require financial sureties and construction Iplans to be approved by the City Engineer. 2 . The site plan has been amended to show the pedestrian walkway widened to 10 feet and it is now being landscaped with deci- duous trees rather than fir trees. The walkway should be extended all the way through the parking area to the sidewalk on Market Boulevard. II3 . Staff has raised concerns that the configuration of the out- door storage area illustrated behind the Lawn and Sports I store will interfere with the turning radius of large trucks attempting to maneuver around it. The current plan has not been modified to resolve this concern. The site plan should be revised to show how a truck docking at the Lawn and Sports Istore will be able to turn out of the site. PUD II Market Square Commercial September 20, 1989 Page 5 1 Internal Circluation and Parking: I 1. A drive-thru is being shown at the northern portion of the shopping center. Staff is very concerned with a drive-thru Ibeing represented on the site plan since we do not feel that even a "small user" drive-thru could be accommodated in that area. Therefore, staff is recommending that the PUD contract make it clear that a drive-thru would not be permitted at I that location and that it be removed from the site plan. 2. The future parking area adjacent to Market Boulevard has been I redesigned as suggested by Fred Hoisington' s memo. 3. The applicant has widened the driving lane south of the I building into a two way street to allow movement of trucks using the docking areas in both the easterly and westerly direction. Miscellaneous: I 1. The applicant is providing only 3 trash enclosures adjacent to I Monterey Drive. The applicant has eliminated the parking stalls adjacent to the trash enclosures as requested by staff . Staff feels that 3 trash enclosures will not be adequate to accommodate the shopping center and that the applicant should I provide at least one additional trash enclosure near the hardware store. The PUD contract will prohibit individual trash enclosures within the parking areas. Staff recommends I that an additional trash enclosure, identical to the ones proposed, should be provided at this time near the hardware store. The dumpster locations along the west side adjacent Ito Monterey Drive should be surrounded by earth berm or opa- que fence or a combination of both at a 6 foot height. A trash compactor is located south of the grocery store. I Staff is requesting the trash compactor be completely screened by a all made of similar materials as the building. 2. The parking lot lights are shown at 30 feet high. Staff is I recommending that the lights be reduced to 25 feet in height and that they match the design of the downtown lighting. I 3 . The site plan shows that the outdoor storage areas will be surrounded by 6 foot high concrete block fence to match the building material. The PUD contract will provide that when the II outdoor storage areas are developed they must be enclosed with the same material which is used on the buildings as shown on the plans. I 4. The Fire Inspector and Public Safety Department has agreed that a "no parking" lane around the building is not required II 1r Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 6 ' and that the applicant is providing enough areas free of parking for emergency access to be provided to the building. Civil Plan - Page 2 A. Sanitary Sewer 1 1. The sanitary sewer service to the veterinary clinic has been revised to the desired 4 inch diameter pipe. 2. The existing 10 inch sanitary sewer currently runs in a 60 foot easement from Monterey to the east side of the site. The developer continues to show the construction of the building over the sewer line. As previously discussed, the city will allow this under the following conditions : a. The existing 10 inch PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed ' in an oversized ductile iron casing which clearly extends 10 feet beyond the limits of any building footings or sidewalk with manholes built at each end of the casing to provide access. The sewer main must be properly blocked and encased in the ductile iron casing, i .e. , grouted or pea rock. 3. Service stubs to the retail center. As previously mentioned, these stubs should be constructed in accordance with the appropriate building codes for service lengths, cleanouts, etc. B. Watermain 1. Location of fire hydrants will be addressed by the Fire Inspector. 2 . The revised water main alignment appears acceptable. However, gate valves need to be added. Concerns regarding the condition of the existing 10 inch CIP watermain which runs west to east through the site are eliminated by the ' abandonment of the pipe. A new utility easement will be required for the new 10 inch watermain line. C. Drainage 1. The developer will be responsible for the extension of the existing 72 inch storm sewer along the south property line. ' Plans that continue to illustrate "installation by the city" are in error. The plan should be modified to note that the storm sewer work is the responsibility of the developer. The ' line must be installed prior to the issuance of any building permits to resolve existing drainage problems. 2. The city would be willing to vacate the drainage easement 1 across the property upon confirmation from BRW that the down ' I Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 7 stream pond is adequately sized to accommodate runoff from the area. 3. An additional catch basins have been added to the south parking lot, however, there is still some question over the north half of the parking lot whether or not the number of catch basins are adequate to service this area without causing temporary flooding of the parking lot. Drainage calculations should be obtained from the developer to deter- mine the adequacy of the system. 4 . No additional details pertaining to roof drains were sub- mitted on this plan. D. Preliminary Plat 1. No change from Gary Ehret' s previous letter dated August 31, 1989 . The city will be willing to vacate the right-of-way through the center of the site with the condition that a sanitary sewer easement is granted for the existing 10 inch sanitary sewer that runs west to east through the site. 2 . Cross easements will have to be provided for internal access to the veterinary clinic and Outlot A and for all utilities. E. Miscellaneous 1. Gary Ehret' s letter reflected that the grading plan did not illustrate future grading along the Soo Line Railroad tracks. These plans still do not clarify the impact on the railroad and should be further addressed, i .e. show that the grading contours will match the existing grades on the railroad property. 2. Berming around the site needs to be confined within the property and not on the street right-of-way, specifically along Monterey Drive. Landscaping - Page 3 ' 1. As recommended by staff, the applicant has provided more evergreens along the south and west side of the property and has replaced many of the evergreens along Market Boulevard and West 78th Street with deciduous trees. Staff feels that the screening along the south side is not adequate and that additional evergreens should be placed along the southerly portion of the property. Primarily, screening of the loading docks for the hardware store and grocery store is inadequate. It has also been suggested that conifer shrubs be provided and ornamental shade trees be planted along the building facades to break up the massing of shrubs. In addition, to provide some color during the winter, compact viburnum should 1 be used in lieu of the regular viburnum. II, . Market Square Commercial PUD II September 20, 1989 Page 8 I 2 . The applicant has provided deciduous trees in some of the parking islands. Staff feels that deciduous trees should also be included within the parking islands just north of the grocery store. IElevations and Signage - Page 4 I 1 . The applicant has provided additional information on the wall signage and the pylon sign. The wall signage will be free standing two foot high individually lighted letters on I matching electrical raceways. Each individual sign will have to receive a sign permit and each store will only be per- mitted two wall signs. This includes the Super Value store. Staff would define the Super Value logo as a wall sign. IThe applicant will be required to submit sign covenants which regulate type, size and location of the wall signage. The I covenants should also state how much space per tenant will be permitted for the wall sign. The two proposed monument signs, at 41 square feet of sign I area, meet the standards of the sign ordinance (maximum of 60 square feet) . The individual stores listed on the monument signs will be permitted but the lettering will not be per- ' mitted to be interchangable ( such as a reader board with weekly specials) . The monument signs are designed to reflect the architecture of the shopping center and as proposed will I maintain the integrity of the site. Outlot A and Lot 2, Block 1 will not be permitted separate pylon or monument signage. I 2. The materials proposed for the building are acceptable to staff. The applicant will be providing a color rendering at the Planning Commission meeting. The colors provided, if I acceptable by the Planning Commission and City Council, will be documented to ensure that the colors shown will be the ones used when the building is constructed. IThe roof sections above the major tenants were presented to staff as being continued from the front of the store to the back. Staff requested that roof sections be provided to I verify that the roof sections go the entire width of the building. These requested sections have not been provided. The city will not accept a false front. The roof line must Ibe continued for the width of the building. Sections were also requested to show the relationship between the development and Hwy. 5. The requested sections have not I been received. The sections are necessary to verify that the majority of the roof area will be hidden by vegetation and grade change. Staff is concerned that the roof equipment, I storage areas, loading docks, etc. will be visible from Hwy. 5 and if so, additional screening should be provided. 1' Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends 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 1 and 2, Block 1 and Outlot A of Market Square 2. The applicant will vacate a portion of the West 78th Street right-of-way and a revised plan must be submitted accom- modating 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. 1 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. The development contract will require financial sureties and construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council. 5. The pedestrian walkway through the parking area shall be extended to the sidewalk on Market Boulevard. 6 . The site plan shall be revised to show how truck docking at the Lawn and Sports store will be able to manuever 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. The PUD contract will state that a drive-thru will not be permitted at that location. 8. An additional trash enclosure shall be provided to accom- modate the northern portion of the shopping center and addi- tional 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. The parking lot lights shall be reduced to 25 feet in height and they shall match the design of the downtown lighting. I. Market Square Commercial PUD ' September 20, 1989 Page 10 10 . The outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by at least a 6 foot high 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 casing which clearly extends 10 feet beyond the limits of 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. 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 t and the plans should be modified to note that this storm sewer work is the responsibility of the developer. The line must be installed prior to the issuance of any building per- mits to resolve existing drainage problems . 15. The applicant shall provide drainage calculations to deter- mine 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 Railroad 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 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 hardware 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. ,11 Market Square Commercial PUD September 20, 1989 Page 11 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 (this includes the Super Value store using the Super Value logo) . The covenants will include the veterinary clinic (Lot 2, Block 1) and Outlot A. The applicant will submit 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 interchangable 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. The city will not accept a false front. 25. Sections shall be provided to show the relationship between the development and Highway 5. The sections shall verify that the majority of the roof will be hidden by vegetation and grade change and roof equipment, storage areas, loading docks, etc. will not be visible from Hwy. 5 and if they are additional screening shall be provided. ' 26. The final plat shall provide drainage and utility easements and cross easements shall be provided over Lot 1, Block 1, for Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot A. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 2 , 1989. 2. City Council minutes dated August 28, 1989 . 3. Memo from Jo Ann Olsen to Market Square Partnership. 4. Illustration of acceleration lane and right turn lane on W. 78th Street. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 13, 1989. 6 . Letter from BRW dated September 14, 1989. 7. Letter from Jim Lasher dated September 12, 1989. 8. Letter from Fred Hoisington dated September 12, 1989. 9. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 27, 1989. 10. Plans dated September 11, 1989. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 59 change other than I just don' t know that Forest Street' s the right place but I think 2 more weeks might make it go through City Council with a little bit more support than the neighbors and less time overall . Is there a motion? ' Wildermuth m th moved , Erhart seconded to table Subdivision Request #89-8 as ' shown on plans dated July 20, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL - CONCEPT PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 1.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Okay, thanks Jo Ann. Here it is five to twelve. We've been here for 6 hours and it' s not fair for us or for you but why don' t you make a presentation at this late hour. We want to treat it fairly at this point in time but unfortunatley we' ve kept you up until midnight. It' s not our choice. Jim Winkles : Thank you. My name is Jim Winkles . I'm with MarCor properties and I 'm part of the team that' s going to be, put together to do this project. I think tonight in fact what we'd like to accomplish is just a couple things very quickly recognizing the hour here too is one, to begin with, we want to just talk very briefly about the PUD process. Secondly, we want to talk to you very briefly about the plan which are two parts. One' s a site plan and one' s the building plans . Really what we want to try and do is just get your ideas on the plans. We' re on a very fast track schedule that we' ve put together with Fred Hoisington and Jim Lasher and with Jo Ann. It' s a schedule that' s ambitious but at the same time is one that we feel that I think, I don' t know if you've received a copy of that yet or not but if not, we'd certainly like to get one of those in your ' hands also. What we' re trying to accomplish is to create a shopping center that has been talked about for quite a while in the town. The property being just south of where we are right now. It would in fact include a grocery anchored center which we have heard for some time now is probably the number one shopping experience that people seem to want around this general area. In fact, Cooper 's SuperValu would be the lead tenant or anchor tenant in that project. It' s a project that' s been talked about for ' a long time. It' s a project that we recently, in the last several weeks have been spending a lot of time with Jo Ann and Fred and Jim Lasher talking about the ultimate design. I guess I would agree with Jo Ann, I think we've made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time. We have been to the HRA and showed them just a concept basis also. We've got a whole series of steps to go here through so we' re trying to get to everybody that' s going to have some type of review over this project. PUD wise, when we started talking to staff, it became very clear that there's Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 60 really not an ordinance, there' s not a vehicle within the City Code right now to allow or permit this type of development. Much as there is in othell cities where there are this type of shopping center. There didn' t seem to be a good one ordinance that we could go to that would say this would wor really well in this particular situation. We looked at the rezonings. W looked at variances. We looked at the PUD' s and it was kind of the consensus of staff and really it was staff' s direction that the PUD seemed to be the best route. That's why we at least are trying to go about it that fashion. I think within that concept we' re trying to show a development that will include a multiple number of buildings. Not just one shopping center but also some outlots and then you get into how do you wor with traffic flow. How do you work with parking and where do you put lot lines and all those sort of things. We don' t know all the buildings that will go on there yet. We know the main shopping center. We don' t know al the outlot pads and what will happen there. We know from experience, looking around, that those things will happen. We just don' t know how they' ll happen or what they' ll be but tonight what we'd like to do, since it is getting late, Todd Kristoferson and Bill Brisley from AmCon are here. and Todd will review the site plan and Bill will review the building plans You've got one set of elevations. Staff said they had some concerns about that. We've gone back and we've met with the staff and Fred and Jim again!' as I said and we have a couple of things to show you tonight to try to start generating some ideas with what we hope we can then arrive at something that we all kind of mutually agree upon so we can put that in final form and get that into staff within the next 2 weeks so we can move II forward in our schedule. Our schedule that we want to hit is being under construction in October . So with that, I guess I 'd ask Todd if he could run over some of the things. Again, we know that when we come back to you roughly in about a month I believe it is Jo Ann, if we hit all the schedul, and we're back on your agenda, then we' ll have renderings and things like that so you can see things a little clearer but at least for the time bein we're trying to get some ideas right now in terms of what your general thoughts are and start putting things in perspective for everybody here. Todd Kristoferson: I think that the site plan that you got in your packet is a little bit difference than this one. We made some changes since that' was submitted. We've been meeting with Jo Ann and Brad and Jim Lash the last 6 weeks and initially we started out with the plan that was, the concept was the same but the parking and the traffic was a little bit different. What we've ended up with I think is a real nice plan. We made a lot of adjustments in working with staff. On the setbacks, we've increased the setback from the property line now. The two sides where the streets are, we've increased those to 25 feet to get additional landscapin and berming in those areas . We adjusted our driveways to get better traffic flow on the entries with the median here so traffic will cross in front where we want to use some stacking. We made some adjustments also i� front of the stores here. In this area here, we initially had thought of the concept of 2 aisles of parking in front of these buildings. Now what we've done is put one row of parking up against the building and then separated the next level of parking with curb and gutter and a 'median typell thing to get a little better traffic flow through there. So we think we've kind of worked this thing, little things here and there that' s kind of worked it's way toward a real workable site plan. We' ve got a few more 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 61 things that we've come up with in the last couple of meetings that we haven't addressed on here. One of those is a sidewalk which has been suggested along Market Blvd . which would tie into I believe some existing sidewalks on this corner. That's something that if we agree to do, I think ' that's a good idea . We' ll incorporate that into our next submittal . Then also there's this hatched out area running through the parking area. What we plan to do with that is dress it up a little and create some landscaping ' and some curved islands with the sidewalk through the middle to hide that walkway through the parking lot into the sidewalk on Market Blvd . . Conrad: Where's the sidewalk? The walkway that you' re talking about. Todd Kristoferson: It' s this hatched out area in here that goes through the parking lot. It was a suggestion I think of staff that people that ' park so far out wouldn' t have to walk through all the cars. That there'd be some walkway to go through there. Conrad: Is it an elevated walkway or is it just marked? Todd Kristoferson: Well it would all be on grade with the parking but I think what we' re envisioning now is some curb and gutter that separates the walkway from the parking and the sides and then has ramps down where the walkway goes through so you' re stepping up and be able to push carts through there or for handicap people will be able to go through there. IF: Erhart: Why do some people put the rows running from the building and then in your case you have the rows going 90 degrees from the building? ' Although I guess because it' s an L building , there really is no. Todd Kristoferson: Part of that is the main parking in here is . . . ' Erhart: This is where the grocery store is? Todd Kristoferson: Yes. The parking layout in that area is pretty much 1 driven by what works for the grocery store. We' ve also made the stalls wider than the City ordinance requires. It cuts down the number of spaces. If there' s a problem we could always restripe the lot and cut our sizes ' down but we'd like to start out with little bit wider spacing. It makes it a little bit easier to get and out with cars and groceries. Wildermuth: What's up there in the open space between 12: 00 and 3: 00? Todd Kristoferson: That' s the outlot area that Jim was referring to . What we'd like to do is with the approval of this and PUD concept apprpoval of ' having additional buildings on there. Probably a couple of buildings in addition to the vet site. We don' t know what those uses would be right now so we don' t know how they would lay out and how the parking would be but we'd like to have it as part of this whole packet, I would like to have it approved that we could come in later with 1 or 2 more buildings on those sites that would have adequate parking and possibly share parking in a cross easement type thing and share parking agreements with the main ' shopping center. That' s all I 've got. So without any other comments, I guess this is pretty close to what we would be coming in with. I Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 62 47 Jim Winkles: With the site plan, the initial building that would go up about 78,000 square feet in size. With that then there' s also the expansion space that you have for the SuperValu which is about another 15,000 square feet. Then we also are, as you can see in terms of the outlot, that' s all in one building . And you have one outlot up there righ now that at least programed, at least there's a significant amount of interest to put in a veterinary clinic. The remaining open space would be' used for other free standing buildings and that could be one building, it could be two buildings. I supposed it could be three. I guess we've envisioned that to be two other buildings. We don' t know what those other' uses would be there other. than we do know that even a SuperValu there' s a requirement that that area has to be self sufficient in a sense of parking. SuperValu will not allow, by their lease with us, will not allow us to put in some use on that site that will generate more traffic than what by ordinance they would have to provide right on their site. I guess that's probably consistent too with what we've been talking to Jo Ann about and some of the staff people that in a sense we can' t overbuild the site by ' putting uses on there that are inconsistent in terms of their hours or anything else. But again, what we' re asking for , we' ll be asking for in the PUD, is a concept approval for that other outlot space recognizing tha there will be some other space. Recognizing that it would still have to conform, would have to come back into you for further subdivision for review of the site plans and building plans for those specific buildings when they' re known. When we start construction, if we don' t know what' s 1 going to go there, it' s simply going to be landscaped. It will be landscaped and be green area until such time as that became known. Whether that was 1 year or 5 years down the road. It would just be landscaped until that point in time. Maybe Bill could come up and talk about the building itself and then maybe after that we could take your comments. Bill Brisley: In working with Mr . Lasher and Mr . Hoisington considerably,' we revised what. . .to the most recent version here. The chief difference here is that down at the end in the corner we have an identify keyot sort of thing that the City already has in several places along the roadway and' similiar in it' s form and structure. Our original design called for a dry bed or a stucco type material on most of the center . We've revised that now to be stucco only on the parts of the buildings that are large. The large anchor tenants so to speak. We have now in the sign band above the general retail , a wood 4 inch lap siding . Whether it' s cedar or redwood, something like that. All along and I don' t know if it was clear to anyone the base that you see under the windows goes all the way through and all I around the back of the building is a rock faced concrete block to give a foundation or pediment sort of base look to it . We' ve soften the canopy from a metal continuous canopy to an opaque, non-translucent canvas canopy that are individual over shops. Sometimes combined , sometimes not to give a feeling that, what we've all been striving for is an old town look. To have as much variety in old town apperance as is possible in a single building. This is one large building. It' s hard to break it up as much all we have but I think we' re getting there to a point that it now'is within that strived for concept of old town for street front. One of the things that you might notice that all the buildings have 2 or 3 levels of. . .at thil tops of their walls. They go all the way around the back. I think all of 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 63 these elements including the quarricos in front of the main tenants I think all meet or contribute to this individuality of these different buildings even though they are one building . We do have and I don' t have an overhead of the handout that you got prior to this one. It's one that we, it was ' sort of the Version C. If the one that were mailed was A, this is B. The one with the peaked roofs or hip roofs over the large anchor tenant is a version that we' re looking at and pricing right now. We don' t have absolute go ahead on it with the contractor yet but it' s the one that possibly is our ultimate design. What you' re looking at here on this one are just blow-ups of these different areas. You get a larger scale. If there' s any questions? ' Jim Winkles : The kind of comments we received from the staff were that they were striving towards the old town type of character. Doing a couple things. Using the different building heights. As you can see on that by different masses on there. They talked about materials and they wanted us to use a combination of material rather than an all this or an all that type of structure. They wanted to start introducing different materials so- 1 hence the rock faced block and I always say glass and the stucco and the wood and some of the other elements, they' re all attempting to create and even the canvas awnings, things like that are all an attempt to try to generate or create this feeling of different buildings even though it's one huge big building . Also introducing all the different elements in terms of material into the thing too so that's what we've been trying to do and I I think tonight what we heard from the consultants just prior to this meeting was that they said yes, they think we' re getting there towards doing that . It's hard to tell , a big building like this , you try to do a rendering or not a rendering but an elevation like this, it' s very difficult to see ' all the detailing in a building like this . Things by it' s nature, because it's so big , get very small and it's hard to talk about a lot of the detailing around the edge of the roof and how the wood and canvas and ' everything comes together and the use of colors and what all happens out there. But I think what we've tried to do is meet staff and say okay, that's the kind of look they want, that' s what we' ll try to design into ' this thing . I think that we' ve pretty much done that. When we come to the next meeting , you' ll see a rendering. A 3D rendering and in color you' ll be able to start picking up on the all details we' re talking about because right now, I look at it too and it looks flat and it' s hard to see the ' detail how things go in and out and colors and how they' re going to relate and use of materials. At least that' s, I guess what I 'm trying to convey to you some of the things that are going to be happening. You' ll be seeing that you can ' t see off of a black and white just elevation drawing which doesn' t give you any kind of perspective to the thing here. Conrad : You' re certainly heading in the right direction. I think your ' Version A was not acceptable at all , in my mind. What I 've seen tonight is certainly getting there . It would, and I know this is all economics as we play with store fronts but this is getting to be something that I think the residents would be real proud of. I would hope that that would be able to be worked in, factored into the equation. The economic equation. You've got a huge building . You've got to break it up and I think the consultants are telling you some of those ways to do it and you' re paying attention and that ' s good . Just to reinforce what they' re telling you, you' re going the 1 Planning Commission Meeting • August 2, 1989 - Page 64' right direction. That' s critical that you go. . . Let' s just open it up fo anybody's comments. Tonight is the night for comments. They' re asking fo this area to be considered a PUD. Actually they're changing zoning on it and in my mind this is a far better use of the land than what we had it zoned for . I 'm not trying to bias you Planning Commission but on the othell hand, I'm looking at the clock and I 'm seeing it's 12: 15. I 'm trying to b a little bit expediate here. I just think that the overall use is far superior to what I had envisioned in this general business district which I was a mish mash of stuff . That doesn' t mean we' re not going to push the general business district down further to the west but this is a terrific improvment over what I perceived was going to go into this parcel of land and I 'm not too concerned about some of the impervious surface ratios and I whatever . I think staff' s done a nice job of detailing some of these things. Jim, what further comments do you have Jim? Wildermuth: The exterior appearance is headed in the right direction. ' Something with a spire on it just doesn' t seem to be appropriate for Chanhassen Lawn and Sport but I think the design evolution is heading in the right direction. I 'd be curious to know what, pursue this PUD idea a little further and see what the City would be giving and what the City would be receiving. Batzli : Not having ever I don ' t think truly considered what could go in II here, I guess I don' t share your total enthusiasm for this being a PUD. Looking at the PUD ordinance, I suppose this may fit efficiency, density and district integration but it certainly doesn' t meet several of the othe categories. Conrad: Let me respond quickly and I normally don' t do it but basically I what it was going to be, this area was going to be zoned as a building , parking lot, building , parking lot , building , you know it was definitely going to be a place for a car center . It was going to be a real mish mash It was originally thought of Brian of being , what we couldn' t put down int� the CBD area, the overflow went out here and that was going to be lots of little units . They could have been restaurants or car dealers or whatever and I just personally had a real problem with that type of, it seemed to m� that we didn' t need that kind of commercial development. So basically you're right. Going under PUD gets rid of some of the restrictions and gives them a little bit more property to deal with to put in parking lots. II You're right. Batzli : I guess the two biggest questions I had , I agree with the comment. that I think the architecture is, Hike this much better than the proposal' that we had in our plans . The other question was this open section. When the impervious surface was calculated, did it take into account that portion? , Olsen: I don' t believe that did , no. Todd Kristoferson : The calculation that we did assumed that that would bel building. That wasn' t counting on that outlot area'. I . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 65 1' Batzli : So you either took it out of your calculation or you included it as being all impervious? Jim Winkles : The calculations were based on that area being developed. ' Batzli: Totally impervious? Todd Kristoferson: Not totally. Bill Brisley: There's green areas in there. Islands and some landscaping. Olsen: He's asking like a 80% or. . . Jim Winkles : We envision two buildings for a total of about another 12,000 ' square feet of space. . . The parking necessary to accommodate a. . . Batzli : The plan that we have is changed, as I understand , for the amount of green space that you have in there currently. Is that right? You say I there's been a change in regards to the setbacks with more landscaping and things like that in there? Jim Winkles : • Yes . The plan has changed . Some of those have moved and . . . Batzli : The one thing I didn' t understand Jo Ann on this parking that' s shown in the dotted lines . A comment in your report was that it would be open or green or grassy until you needed it and then it' s going to be a parking lot. ' Olsen: It ' s shown as future parking and when we were first discussing , it was going to possibly only be used. . . Jim Winkles : While it' s necessary for when and if people could expand . . . 15, 000 square feet for the grocery store which they' re planning, until it' s built, that area , that front needs to be landscaped . What we' re showing on the plan, we show you the ultimate size of the building and the ultimate ' parking area . Olsen : One thing that we initially discussed was that if it was even found with the expansion that some of that parking area would not necessarily have to be open all the time. That there could be some creative way of developing it so it still might look like. . . ' Batzli : Was the impervious surface calculation calculated with the grocery store expansion and the additional parking in place? Jim Winkles : Yes . • Batzli : So there ' s 17% green space on this plan with that development up here? Jim Winkles : With the total development, yes . Batzli : I don' t know where you' re squeezing it all but okay. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 2, 1989 - Page 66 1 Conrad: What do you think? Are you concerned about the PUD? They would I like to hear it. What would you like to change? Green space? Batzli : Yes. ' Conrad: Bump it up? Batzli : Yes. ' Conrad: What would you do? 1 Batzli : I don' t know. Tear down paradise and put up a parking lot. Conrad: Okay. Batzli : Well I should say this . It' s not a concern as long as the grocery store doesn' t expand and that additional parking doesn't go in probably bull then I think you' ve got a lot that' s a parking lot. Big parking lot. But it's going to be developed. Wildermuth: But all the businesses are going to take a big parking lot. II Batzli : Sure. Well you've got a lot of businesses that are going to require a lot of traffic and a lot of people moving in and out. I agree, PUD is a good way to handle it but I don' t know, we' ve talked a lot recently about PUD is a special deal . We' re getting something in return. It sounds to me like the only thing we' re getting here is that we avoid getting a mish mash. Conrad: That's right. Batzli : So we' re not getting anything positive, we' re avoiding a negative and I don't know that I necessarily agree with that kind of philosophy for a PUD. ' Wildermuth: But there' s a lot of potential things. Conrad: There' s a lot more give and take in some of the designs. ' Wildermuth: There will be some good construction materials or higher grad construction materials. Conrad: Yes, and you have that kind of leverage. Batzli : Are we leveraging? ' Conrad: At 25 after , no. We' re just giving them our comments right now. Erhart: Brian, this is general business. It' s not central business district. This is general and that district requires how much green normally? I ' Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 67 Olsen: I believe it' s 70%. Erhart: 70% impervious and they're looking to go 83%. I think the PUD is a great idea to be applied here. I think the area needs it. It' s truly a ' commercial area . It's almost the central business district but I wouldn' t favor changing to that because as it's zoned, it gives us some leverage here to work on the architectural and the landscaping of the 17% or maybe it ends up 12% or something so I think it's a great opportunity for us to get some leverage on this thing . I'm a little curious on who is it within the City, who is it on the city side that evaluates these proposals from an architectural point of view? Is that us Jo Ann? In this whole downtown redevelopment, don't we have. . . Olsen: The HRA also reviewed this plan that we' re talking about. ' Erhart: But BRW has no role in evaluating architectural? Olsen: We' re using Jim Lasher in that capacity and also with Fred and then - ' myself and we' re the ones who are really stating what we'd like to see in addition to what normally they would give. ' Erhart: Hoisington group? Okay, so we do have someone professionally sitting on our side evaluating these groups? If: Olsen: Yes . Erhart : So the process was when they came in with , AmCon came in with this first pass, Fred had the same reaction that we did I assume? Good because I think if the first pass had any serious, I guess if we took the first pass seriously I 'd be surprised. I 'd be questioning whether we really had a way of handling the whole downtown thing so I 'm encouraged to know that that was rejected out of hand. And we' re going the right direction here but I just can' t imagine a development this big with a bunch of flat roofs quite honestly from an architectural standpoint. I think it absolutely needs some roofs on some of these spaces to make it workable. What it' s ' going to look like in a few years if it' s totally flat is it' s just going to look like a big Kenny' s and I think weren' t you up here Brad trying to, aren' t you working at trying to improve Kenny' s? Is that you? ' Brad Johnson: No, that' s the City. ' Olsen: That' s HRA. Erhart: Someone. I mean it' s impossible. You' ve got a flat roof building and the story was that we couldn' t add anything on the roof for fire reasons or whatever . Olsen: Building Code. Snow capacity. Erhart : Well then how come these guys can do it? Olsen: They' re building a whole new structure underneath it. 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 68 17 Erhart: Oh, because it would require some structural , okay. Anyway, I absolutely think at a minimum, this is a minimum that it's got to have. I just can' t imagine having that much flat roof and so I 'd like to not only emphasize Jo Ann and Fred, I guess he finally gave up the ghost tonight. Olsen: I told him to go home. Erhart: Is to take a pretty hard line on this architectural stuff. I'm willing to give the 17% or give the 13% up because it's truly a commercial' area. It' s going to be cars and asphalt but let' s make the buildings look neat. Let' s make it look like some of these nice developments you see in Phoenix. I Wildermuth: Burger Brothers off of. . . Erhart: Yes. Hopefully not that dense but that kind of thing . ' Olsen: They're using that shopping center as an example for the applicants. Wildermuth: There' s another new one called Woodlake in Kohler , Wisconsin that will just knock your socks off and I don' t think the construction is II that expensive. It' s the cut stone or block. Exposed aggregate block. Erhart: That' s interesting because that' s the one I had in mind. In fact I mentioned it when someone was saying what are they going to put there, Ill told Ladd, I said that's where Burger Brothers goes. Secondly, I think I ' ll be anxious to see it when you come back with the colored one with all the nice roofs on it and I ' ll be very anxious to see the landscaping plan. ' What do we do with this 17%-20%. Let' s get some trees in there. I don ' t think anybody' s going to use this thing for a park but it is going to set an image for the downtown area. Let' s get some nice trees and berming in there. So that' s my comments. Conrad: I think it' s a good route to fly. The back of the building . The" building that's, Monterey Drive. So we have the back of the center facing that street. What, do we have one building over there right now so it' s really not the best of all worlds. Olsen: No, that was one of our problems with it was the fact that it is II facing another street and it' s acting as the back, like an alley almost. Conrad : Why don' t we close the road down? , Erhart: Make it an alley? Conrad : It' s just really not, what does it mean for folks on the other side that want to build, for the development to the west of that road Jo Ann? ' L Olsen : That's what we' re trying to make them provide. Additional landscaping and to screen it. I know that they want to also use that as all view or a front . Not a front but for signage and advertising of their Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 69 ' stores but we' re coming from the viewpoing that that should be considered like as a service area and screened as such and try to reduce the impact to the lots across the street as much as possible. ' Conrad: I think that' s the thing I don' t like about it but I don' t know that there' s a solution to that particular problem. Erhart: Just have another shopping center facing the opposite direction on the opposite side. Conrad: Back side, what's the building materials of the back side? Jim Winkles: We haven' t worked that our completely yet but again, we' ll be using some of the same materials that we have in the front. Carrying some ' things around. The same type of material . Conrad: Concept for signage on the side? ' Jim Winkles: Some of the people, particularly the SuperValu and some of the other people along on the south side of the project do want, very important for them to be signed towards TH 5. On the back side, the other ' people, I 'm not sure. They may or may not want signing . We know that we' ll be developing an overall sign plan for the entire center which will be part of everything else that we bring in too. IP: Conrad: I don' t know that signage will be bad over there. Again, trying to get away from it looking like a warehouse . Anything that makes that street look a little bit more appealing that the back side of a . . . Jim Winkles : We know it' s going to have to be well landscaped back there too. Create something back there that' s not just going to be the back side of a building so the materials have to look a little bit better . The landscaping has to look a little bit better and the whole thing has to be dressed up a little bit . ' Conrad : Will there be loading docks back there? Jim Winkles: We really will only have a couple places with loading docks . Conrad : Really? How do they service the stores? ' Jim Winkles: Many of the smaller stores for the most part feed right through their front door . They get vans and things like that. The other ones will pull up to the back door . They won' t have loading docks but ' they' ll have overhead doors and just rear doors but there' s really only Lawn and Sports and the hardware will each have a loading dock. Other than that, it would just be rear doors. As I say, many of the small businesses, they would just simply load through the back door or they load right It- through the front door early in the morning with vans or very small trucks . Conrad: I 'm not wild about loading through the front. 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 70 Jim Winkles: Unfortunately that happens in these kinds of businesses. Whether you get a bakery or some other very small store, materials come in very, very small trucks and they get there early in the mornings and they're in and out. Or the back door. It's just whatever is most convenient for them to run in and out real quickly. I think any of the I larger deliveries would come to the back and they go into the back to deliver it. Conrad: Like a liquor store. Where would they go? I Jim Winkles: They would go in the back. They go in the back because they' ll take, they don' t need a loading dock height but they would have a double door. Typically they're situated with a double door in back. What they do is most of them, they' ll have it set up so the coolers are going to be in back which gets into the whole marketing concept of how you sell liquor. People go to the back of the coolers and they literally will load right from the truck right into the coolers. So it will be a walk-in cooler . The truck driver will actually load their coolers for them in man - cases so they'd load in the back. Right through just a double door . Conrad: Okay. I don' t think I have anything else to add. I appreciate your comments. ' Jim Winkles: Your comments are all well taken . We understand what lies ahead of us and we do appreciate you not tabling us. ' Conrad : If we make you stay up until 11: 30, we ' re going to listen to you. Erhart: How many acres is it really? ' Jim Winkles : It' s about, I think 11. 2 acres . Conrad: I think recapping. The greenery. Trying to make the parking lot' look smaller than it really is. The back side, I think we' re interested in and then the architectural . I think of all the priorities, we would lean towards a PUD concept , giving up some kind of green space or whatever , I think you've just got to help us improve the exterior. I think you have the concept and I think that' s probably our top priority. Erhart: When's it going to be done? Jim Winkles : When's it going to be done? We want to be back on your next" agenda in terms of process wise. We'd like to start mid-October and get the buildings up. It' s a good size building so it' s not going to be built over night so we'd really be looking at about a May 1-May 15th. Possibly earlier . Again , the other thing , to have everything done, it might be estimated, there might be some things and people moved in before that but to get everything all done and put together , landscaping and the whole works , sometime around May 1. Thank you very much. ' 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Councilman Workman: You mean to completion September, 1990. That's not going to cause any problems with TH 5? Gary Warren: No. In fact that would coincide with what we would want to see as far as the completion of 184th and Dell Road intersection as a part of TH 5. So I would say it would be very similar to what would happen here on West 78th Street detachment. We'll be working both those projects at the same time next year. ' Resolution #89-99: Councilman Wbrkanan moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept the feasibility study for Lake Drive East and 184th Avenue Improvement Project 89-6 and call for a public hearing to be set for October 9, 1989. All II voted in favor and the motion carried. ' SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, MARKET SQUARE PUD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BLVD., MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. 1 Jo Ann Olsen: Just real briefly. The Council is just to act whether or not they feel a PUD is the appropriate process for the applicant to be going through. The Planning Commission did recommend that a PUD is the right form for the site plan so it's just really a concept plan at this time and they're going through the more detailed review. Mayor Chmiel: What does a PUD do for us other than the fact that... ' Jo Ann Olsen: Well it allows us to require additional amenities that we normally wouldn't have really the authority to ask for. Additional landscaping. ' Additional architectural design. It's giving us a lot of power with then, leeway with working on negotiating. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I just wanted the public to understand that. ' Councilman Johnson: But at the same time for that we're granting basically variances to the zoning ordinance without the variance process. It is one method, the only method really available for getting a variance for parts of the zoning without showing a hardship. It's kind of a horse trading- maneuver. Years ago we didn't do very good at it. We're doing a lot better now though. It used to be a one way trade. The City never got that much but a new ordinance, new people. Councilman Boyt: And it takes a four-fifths vote. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's a requirement. Otherwise it's a simple majority. ' Councilman Wbrkaman: Can you summarize for us what we're getting with the PUD and what we're not? Jo Ann Olsen: Well we're still working on it so I can't tell you exacly what we're getting. Councilman Workman: How can we approve it then? I 65 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: This is just the concept plan. Whether or not really a PUD would be the way to go. They are going through a more detailed plans right at this time. Like next week, a week from this Wednesday, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the development plan which is more detailed. Like a site plan review but some of the things we're getting is like a pedestrian walkway through the parking lot. The landscaping. Additional landscaping. Signage that we want rather than just your basic wall signage. We're getting additional amenities for the architecture of the building. We're getting sane new designs that they were going to propose and better materials. We've got in addition to staff we have BRW, Gary Ehret and Jim Lasher is working on it and Fred Hoisington so we have a big team that's really working on trying to make it a good plan. We're still reviewing exactly what it is we want but getting closer to that goal. Councilman Workman: So tonight we either grant a PUD or we don't? Jo Ann Olsen: No. You're just approving the sketch plan with the basic ' concept. Councilman Johnson: What are they asking for in this PUD? ' Jo Ann Olsen: What are they asking for? Increase in impervious surface. Councilman Boyt: That's them here right? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Yes Brad was here. Brad Johnson: I think you've got the best version of the plan in front of you. You also have a version that's a, I think you've got the one... Jo Ann Olsen: No they don't. They just have the sketch plan so that version's 1 not very good. Brad Johnson: The process we have to go through on a PUD is we come here and we ' got quite a bit of input fran the Planning Commission and we met with the staff probably 2 or 3 times and they translated the feelings of the Planning Commission into a letter and we've been adjusting our plans and resubmitted those about what? A week ago, to the Planning Department and then we'll have a hearing on that on the 6th of September. I guess what I'd like to hear fran you, basically as I understand it and I have not done a large shopping center now has there been one done in this community but there is no real zoning that fits, other than our CBD probably. The typical coverage of a shopping center and normally the shopping center, because it's a large parcel, we're in what? A BG or general business district, which was, as I understand it, from the Planning Commission, designated that primarily for small lots and anticipated the lots to be 1 to 2 acres and there you need a lot of green area as a percentage of the whole thing to just meet setback requirements. A normal shopping center, the feedback I'm getting from the shopping center developers, when you get into the 5 and 10 acre, has a 80% to 90% land coverage. The ones you see at the shop, you know Southdale or over here at TH 4 and TH 5 or down at, they're all much larger because they have a lot more parking requirements than you're used to seeing yet you have the normal amount of green space. You [!.! have the 25 foot setback fran the roads all the way around the property and things like that so I think that's our major area where we have same, where we I 66 , IICity Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 li went to the PUD. Had we asked for a rezoning to a CBD, which is adjacent to that, we would not have had any of those requirements but on the other hand then you'd have to worry about us because we'd have a lot of, CBD grants us a lot of II flexibility that longterm probably the City would not want to grant us so using the PUD we're able to achieve possibly those things we need on coverage and you're able to maintain a control because we just don't have a zoning set up in 1 this, as I understand it. BRW guys are here. This is kind of a normal way of handling this problem would be through the PUD process. And just seeing how it's working from Jo Ann's point of view, we've increased I believe the II asethetic appearance. The Planning Commission did not like the way the project initially showed up in your drawings there and we've changed that quite a bit. We've gone with some peaked roofs and we've changed the front elevations quite a bit and gone with a lot softer feeling and the next time you see it, they'll I • have all new colors and it will look like a nice thing. I think it's premature quite honestly to go into detail on that because we don't have the real kind of drawings you need to see that kind of thing but you've all seen the, wouldn't I you say Jo Ann, we've done some improvement on the buildings and it's been a big change. I guess that's what is supposed to happen during this process. That was the give and take. I know we've added $100,000.00 or so to the cost in the - II process. We do have some engineering. It's a tough site to engineer and Gary's working on that right now. I think we've done quite a few things. We've got a sidewalk now that runs around the whole thing and pretty soon you'll actually be II able to walk across the tracks to the pond and turn left and go to the Amoco. It's going to happen and I think all those are good things. There's a walking path through the center of the. You know it's interesting. The retailers would like to see one huge parking lot with no trees, no nothing. So you've got on It- one hand our customer who don't like things that way and I don't think the developer wants to see it that way and it doesn't look good that way but from a maintenance point of view and people ramming into things, they seem to want II everything cleared out. Mayor Chmiel: In just looking at your landscaping on the plans, and I realize this is just... One of the points I want to bring out is that we make sure in I doing that landscaping that we keep the street openings clear so visibility is, from a safety aspect because some of these intersections we've got now, you can't see left or right and you have to creep out into the intersection before I you can really see. So one of those I think we should pay pretty close attention to. II Brad Johnson: From our end of it, the way we'd like to see it go, as I said, there were two ways to get it done. This seems to be the one. I think this gives you the most control and I think we're comfortable with the flexibility. So far negotiations have been going fairly smoothly. It's hard to see, the only I thing you really see, like you say, is the landscaping ultimately and the look of the building and we'll have those in color for you, which helps a lot, by the time we come back again. 1 Mayor CYmiel: Yes. This is just preliminary and this will be back to us. Brad Johnson: Probably in a month. Councilman Johnson: What time frame are you looking at this? I/ II 67 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 11 Brad Johnson: I don't know. You never know what kind of alligator is going to leap out at you. We are, in talking to Gary Ehret earlier this evening, he wandered around but one of the problems we're not quite sure of what the soil conditions are on the southeast corner of that site. And that soil means cost. We are up to about a 70%. A grocery store has just been increased in size and concept to a 22,500 square foot grocery store and it could be nearing inside the size of a New Market. That has helped us a lot on the leasing. When we did Town Square we were required to have 40% pre-leased by the lending institutions and thanks to our tax law changes, the lack of real estate investment, we're not being required to pre-lease 70% and that's a real big difference. We've got a redevelopment agreement. If everything went smoothly, which we'll assume it won't, we could start in October sometime. We might be able to pull a grading permit in October if things go smoothly. We have about 65% to 70% pre-leased but I think I said we'd start this in about May of this year and things just don't move. As I said, the world of real estate is changing and I spent the whole day being hammered on because the clinic isn't started yet and people just don't realize you know that this is what happens in the development business. There possibly was a subterranean pollution of the water in Chanhassen. Because of that the lenders were not going to lend to anything in Chanhassen so we spent 3 weeks going to the Pollution Control Adninstration. Clearing the name of Chanhassen with this one bank because people just don't understand it all and it's just a lot of little things. Councilman Johnson: Just from our gas station? ' Brad Johnson: Yes. Not the one on 78th though. The one down on TH 5. [IF Councilman Johnson: Oh Amoco? Brad Johnson: Yes. It's out of the blue and those are the kinds of things that we run across. We had some other little minor changes in the clinic deal too and that could happen here but ideally we would be there in October. From the City's point of view, I think we're moving as fast as we can. Okay? We also have a new planner now so if I have to redesign it but this is, welcome. But that's kind of where we are and ideally we start in October. If don't, but we're getting close. I keep saying, the only shopping center that's been started on TH 5 from Rainbow out this way is Town Square and it's done, in the last 4 years and they've got 4 other ones they've been trying to start. And they're got 3 proposed in town here they haven't started so hopefully this one will get started here in the next 4 to 5 months. I Councilman Johnson: The one thing I don't want to see is another HSZ where somebody gets up there, does sane preliminary grading, sets it out over the winter. Brad Johnson: Where's that? Councilman Johnson: TH 7 and TH 41. A real mess. Erosion controls isn't done and planting and seeding next spring. It's all the way caning up to fall already and no real progress. ' Brad Johnson: It's tough to do a preliminary grade on this one without financing on it because it's not going to be any small price. And you've got a 68 I. City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 IIdeveloper in AMCON that's used to working in town here, or the contractor side of it. IICouncilman Boyt: How much is HRA going to be involved in this? It's their property isn't it? ' Brad Johnson: They're helping us finance it indirectly through, we pay the taxes. They give us the money, approach to the whole thing. There are two people that are trying to relocate within the community. Bernie Hanson and the ' Hardware Store which is about to lose it's situation over there sooner or later. Then they approve, as you do, the site plan. They have architectural control. Just by the fact that they don't want to spend any money. They keep the right because they're supposed to do the town so they could not sign our redevelopment ' agreement. You approve it but this is one other approval that they happen to have. If they don't like the project, they don't sign the development agreement and we don't get the funds. Councilman Boyt: It's going to be an interesting project for the new Council because you're going to get a first hand look at what it's like to design a giraffe. We have two different groups that both feel they have control over this and it becomes quite a balancing act. Brad Johnson: I think in this particular case they're comfortable so far so I don't, we've just got to be careful that all the bodies get it at the proper time rather than you find out we're doing something. I think we're done it. This particular plan, unlike a couple other ones we've done, has gone through all the bodies at least once already. Cot the comments. We're making the changes so by the time we came back for the formal presentation, which starts this Thursday with the HRA, everybody's had comments. Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that the reason you couldn't put this into a central business district is because of outside storage which isn't allowed in a central business district. Is that right? ' Brad Johnson: You could have done it on a variance but there's other things that we might have had to ask for. Councilman Boyt: Well variances, I would guess your chances are slim. In terms of comments, when you go for a POD, green area is important. What we're giving up here is apparently green area. Conceiveably this needs a district all by itself. It beats me but if it goes POD, landscaping is going to have to be pretty impressive to replace that 13 or so percent hard surface that we're picking up. Brad Johnson: I think we've done that and we've also done it in the design of the building but we've already gone through one stage of negotiations to get it there. Councilman Boyt: Then the ultimate stumbling block for me, which the HRA controls. I guess that's why I see this as a particular balancing act, is the �lsize of the grocery store. I'm glad to see that it's increased but what's the f size of the Super. Value up in Eden Prairie? Brad Johnson: Same size. 69 11 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 11 Councilman Boyt: 22,500? Brad Johnson: 25,000. Councilman Boyt: I wouldn't want to see us build anything smaller because I think we get into a situation in which we really don't have a grocery store but we have something that's going to make it absolutely impossible for any other grocery store to cane into town. Brad Johnson: It's also expandable but the owner of the store is fighting with Super Value to make it bigger. Okay? Super Value has the purse strings and what he wants to do is make sure that this store is competitive to any store that's on our fringe for a very personal reason. He doesn't want to die because he doesn't attract our business so he's matching this store against the Rainbow, from an internal. He can't get that big and still survive out here but from the pricing and that kind of thing and he's going to match the size against the Super Value at TH 4 and TH 5. Councilman Boyt: What I recall... I Brad Johnson: This is a bigger store than we used to have. Mayor Chmiel: How many square feet? ' Brad Johnson: We've got 22,500 now which is almost New Market size. I Mayor Chmiel: I was thinking it was only 16,000 or 15,000. Jo Ann Olsen: That's with expansion the 21,000. 1 Brad Johnson: We're expanding right away. We've already just increased the size of the store. ' Councilman Boyt: As I recall when this was discussed by the HRA about a year ago, what was being proposed then was a pretty heavy subsidy by the HRA or the grocery business. Brad Johnson: If it didn't succeed. Councilman Boyt: Are we still looking at that? Brad Johnson: Oh yes. I Councilman Boyt: I'm not for that. You know, maybe I could be convinced but I would say at this point, I don't think the City of Chanhassen should be subsidizing a grocery store. If it can't make it, then maybe it's not the right time. Brad Johnson: Well the City's not. It's the tax increment that is. I Councilman Boyt: Well excuse me and I don't have any control of the HRA. What we have control over is the zoning and so I'm just telling you that my concerns are that the grocery store's got to be viable. 70 1 LCity Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Brad Johnson: I guess you can attack, it's a technical issue because you can II deal with the development in different ways to make it viable. This was the way the HRA wanted to make it viable. There's all different kinds of ways of making a project viable. Then a direct subsidy to the grocery store. You could write II down the land and subsidize the developer which is done pretty commonly. Same difference. In this particular case they did not want the money to go to the developer. So they didn't. That was just the difference. ICouncilman Boyt: So they're going to put themselves in the grocery business? Brad Johnson: No. The developer would worse case because he's the one putting II the money in. There's no money coming frau the HRA directly in that case. It's all provided by the developer but the string is, if it's not needed, the HRA wants it to come back to their development fund. I'll go through that. You just have to start from the beginning. IMayor Chmiel: They're guaranteed x number of dollars for that given year. Over a 3 year period from my understanding. ICouncilman Boyt: And maybe I'm over simplfying it to say that then the HRA is getting in the grocery business but that's what it looks like. IIMayor Chmiel: When we entice something into the community, of what we don't have, and that's sort of unites the downtown is what I think they were saying. I Brad Johnson: And as I said, next time we come through or maybe you could sit in on the HRA meetings and review the development group but there's a lot of rationale but this was just the approach that we decided to take. Everybody II felt a grocery store was going to be successful. If it's successful, there is no subsidy the way it's set up. Councilman Boyt: Well I've kind of felt that the City is trying to force a I grocery store where the market won't support it. I think that's what Cooper is saying as well. 1 Brad Johnson: Not necessarily so. What has happened is we don't have a Driskill or a Cooper in our community that has built the grocery business over a period of time. We did have somebody who was in the grocery store where Kenny's II used to be. This is philosophical but I believe this guy's a policeman now but Kenny's was originally, had it grown the way whatever that was before, it would have been a Cooper's. That family would have continued in a community this size providing groceries and had built a base and you would not have this kind of 1 situation. Excelsior has Driskill's. Hopkins has Tait's. We had somebody but they dropped out of business and it's a million dollar investment on Cooper's part, forgetting all this other garbage we're talking about. There is no proven II business here but if we don't do that, you won't have any retail business in town because it's the main draw. It's just an interesting problem. II Mayor Chmiel: Kenny's is at the point Bill now where they are on a month to month basisil . Councman Boyt: Right, I understand they're leaving. I 1 71 OM City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: And if they can find someone to take that space, they're gone. Brad Johnson: I guess what I was saying there too is that that site was, I don't know who owned that before but it was a local family but they just decided to get out of the grocery business. At the same time Driskill's was in downtown, it's just the way it has evolved. , Councilman Workman: I guess I don't like, the grocery store is my biggest concern and scene of the same Bill and I are philosophically correct together. Boy that's different. YJe tend to with our retail in town, we have a dry cleaner. in town but they aren't dry cleaning in town. We have a bakery in town, although they're not making bakery goods in town and so we'll have a grocery store and I want it to be a grocery store. A place where we can do these things. My concern is, and looking ahead with the PUD, etc. and if we're going to be asking for all sorts of greenery, doesn't greenery in front of retail areas kind of block it and kind of defeat the purpose of signage and everything else? It seems to me that the more greenery we pile into town and around these buildings, that people driving by won't even be able to see them. We've got Douglas Firs all over the place. They get pretty big don't they? Busineses who are doing business in town probably want to be seen a little bit so I guess I'm sr just adding my comment that somehow so we don't block it out too much and defeating you know. We have a grocery store over there behind those trees in there or something. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: I want to ditto what Tom is saying there. I've said it about the original downtown planning. I thought it was going to interfere too much. I do have concerns. I want this to be equitable. I believe a grocery store is a vital thing for the overall growth. I hear many citizens saying they want a grocery store here in town. They don't want to see it some little thing. They realize they're not going to gat a�Rainbow or a Cub size food store out here. I do believe that it is very necessary for the continued growth of this town. I also agree that in order for anybody to be viable, they have to be seen. If we over plant to the point of blocking the view, then only the people that know it's there will shop there and that's not good for retailing and retailing is what these type of places are about. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Further discussion? Councilwoman Dimler: I do agree with most of what's been said and especially ' with what Jay said about the grocery store. The people here in Chanhassen do want a grocery store. I'm not sure they want to subsidize it. That would be my major concern. Also, I think that in a POD, from what I read here so far, I didn't see that the City was getting enough. Or what we're getting even. I'm not real warmed up to it. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I think staff's looking for direction of whether or not this should be as a POD development for the commercial shopping center. Councilman Boyt: I would say there's really no choice but to come in under a POD unless we're going to rewrite our zoning ordinance. 72 I IICity Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 IIMayor Chmiel: Right. Very true. Okay. Is there going to be any motion? Councilman Boyt: Is there a need for one? IICouncilman Workman: I move approval of the sketch plan. ICouncilman Johnson: We didn't see the sketch plan. Councilman Boyt: You and I didn't receive the sketch plan. IMayor Chmiel: You looked at mine Jay. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I looked at yours but I'm told that this isn't even 1 the current sketch plan. Jo Ann Olsen: That is the sketch plan. ITodd Gerhardt: It's a sketch plan but it's not the final. It's not the most current but it's a sketch plan. I Councilman Johnson: This is the sketch plan but we've got something better over there. I Jo Ann Olsen: That's going to the Planning Commission right now. Staff hasn't even made the final review of it yet. I Mayor Chmiel: You still have control on it because it will be coming back, if you're looking for the control. Councilman Johnson: Do we have to approve the sketch plan? We have to approve Ithe concept for a planned unit development? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, you'd have to approve the concept for a planned unit Idevelopment, right. Councilman Johnson: Yes, that I agree with. The sketch plan, I don't think we Iwant to say we approve it per se. Mayor Chmiel: No. Just the concept plan. II Councilman Johnson: The concept that this should be a planned unit development area for what they're trying to do. IMayor Chmiel: Concept plan for planned unit development. Is there a motion? Councilman Johnson: I'll move that. ICouncilman Workman: Second. Councilman Boyt: I need to know what it is we're talking about here. Councilman Johnson: We moved the concept of POD. IMayor Chmiel: Strictly. 73 i City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 Councilman Boyt: What does that mean? Councilman Workman: I don't think it means much. Jo Ann Olsen: There's three different stages that you go through for a PUD. The first one is a concept which is essentially, you just look at it as whether or not it should be a POD. Real sketchy. Councilman Boyt: All we're doing then this evening is indicating that this could conceiveably be a PUD? Jo Ann Olsen: Right. You're not giving. By doing this is not saying you're approving... , Councilman Johnson: I'll read the staff's recommended recommendation here. The City Council recommends whether they feel a POD is appropriate for this site. I believe a POD is appropriate. I move a POD is appropriate for this site. Councilman Boyt: And I think you got a second to that. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the City Council approves that a PUD is appropriate for the southwest corner of Market Blvd. and West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: I would like to move to amend the agenda and have item 11, Mr. ' Glen Pauls who missed the Visitor Presentation. He's here now and I know he's been waiting patiently so I would like to move that as a motion to amend the agenda. ' Councilman Johnson: Second. Mayor Chniiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to hear Visitor Presentations at this point in the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' VISITOR PRESENTATION: Glen Pauls: I'm Glen Pauls. I represent the NordicTrack Company in Chaska. What we're looking at is building a new building across TH 41 from where we're at now. Right across from the Aeration Building. Over on this site here where I guess your public utilities buildings are right in this first corner. This is 82nd Street and TH 41, along this side. We've acquired this land already. We're going to start grading on it this fall hopefully if things work out right with the bids and what not. What we're proposing to do is requesting the Council to let the staff negotiate price in selling your public utility land there. Nbving that. I guess they have some ideas where they'd like to put it. Just in that front corner. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to find out what it's worth. 74 r ' CITY OF I ji, '", 'Itki elr' r CHANHASSEN Atioof 7 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 , 0 4, (612) 937-1900 IMEMORANDUM TO: Market Square Partnership IFROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: August 31, 1989 ISUBJ: Market Square PUD - Site Plan Dated August 16, 1989 I The following are a combination of comments from Planning Staff, Fred Hoisington, Jim Lasher and Gary Ehret. Site Plan - Page 1 I1 . The site plan refers to excess right-of-way to be dedicated to the project. A portion of this right-of-way will be vacated I as part of the development process. It is not definite that all of the right-of-way shown to be dedicated to the project will be vacated. I2 . As part of the improvements to West 78th Street there are plans to provide an 8 foot wide bituminous pathway along the south side of West 78th Street between Monterey Drive and I Market Boulevard. This 8 foot wide bituminous pathway should be shown on the plan. I 3 . The 4 foot sidewalk adjacent to Market Boulevard should be widened to 6 feet. 4. There are only three trash enclosures shown for the entire I project. Is this the correct number? Trash enclosures will not be permitted within the parking areas. It appears that parking stalls which block the trash enclosures may need to Ibe eliminated to provide access to the trash enclosures. 5 . The parking lights shall be to 25 feet in height to match the I height of the lights on Market Boulevard. Also, it has been recommended that the parking lot lights match the same design as the downtown lights. I 6 . The outdoor storage areas should be enclosed with the same material which is used on the buildings and not with a 100% opaque fence. I 7) I .1 August 31, 1989 Page 2 7. The vehicular circulation throughout the site can still be ' improved, primarily in front of the hardware store where we feel it is poorly designed. In addition, the Fire Inspector is recommending that no parking shall be allowed next to the building and that a clear fire lane of at least 24 feet shall be maintained around the perimeter of the building. 8. The amended site plan shows the pedestrian walkway through ' the parking lot. We are recommending that the pedestrian walkway be widened to 4 feet and that it should not be landscaped with fir trees. We are recommending that it be landscaped with deciduous trees and that there shall also be parking lot stripping in the parking bay lanes at the pedestrian walkway crossings . 9 . It is questionable whether there is enough area for the semi- trailer to exit the Lawn and Sport shop if there are cars parked along the southern edge. 10. The grocery store loading docks are designed so that semi- trailers will exit going the wrong way on a one way street. ' Site Plan - Access Points 1 . West 78th Street Driveway - The original downtown redevelop- ment plan did not reflect a driveway at this location and primary access was intended from Market Boulevard. For this access to work properly, at the very least, a right turn lane should be provided since there is excess right-of-way available to the site. The city is also considering elimina- tion of this access completely and maintain primary access from Market Boulevard. 2. Market Boulevard Driveways - It appears that this access plan ' from Market Boulevard is suitable, but it is recommended that the entry width of 12 feet should be widened. 3. Monterey Driveways - The location of the driveway points on Monterey Drive are suitable but information was not provided to make final determination if the design is proper. ' 4 How will the outlot be serviced, internally or by individual _ drives from West 78th Street and Market Boulevard? 5 . . It is still unclear as to the exact materials and colors being used on the building. It was recommended that the drug store have the wood surface to break-up the expanse of the south side of the shopping center next to the grocery store. August 31, 1989 Page 3 6. A drive through is shown north of the center. The area ' available for stacking is very limited and is cause for con- cern by staff. The applicant should show exactly how they see that this will work without causing traffic conflicts. 7. The future parking area adjacent to Market Boulevard should be redesigned in accordance with the attached drawing ( see Fred Hoisington' s memo) . 8. Additional details were requested for the veterinary clinic site has not been provided. 9 . The site plan should also illustrate where stop signs will be located within the parking area. ICivil Plan - Page 2 See Gary Ehret' s memo. Landscaping Plan - Page 3 1. The primary areas needed for screening are along the south and west side of the property. The proposed landscaping in these areas are inadequate using clusters of Douglas Fir and deciduous material where year round and continuous screening is necessary. Deciduous trees would be preferred to be located along West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. I 2. There is also concern about site lines and snow storage within parking areas with the small shrubbery on all of the parking islands. 3. The shrubbery proposed in the parking lot islands should be reduced and add deciduous trees . Elevations and Signage - Page 4 1. Details are still not being provided signage. We are recom- I mending a detailed signage plan be submitted for approval. As stated before, there shall be a maximum of two wall signs per store. Also details on the pylon sign(s) should be pro- vided. ' 2. The building materials for the wall mass has appeared to be changed to concrete block. What exactly is the wall surface proposed? 3. The scaling of the elevations seems to be in error. 4. It is still not clear on exactly what colors of materials are being proposed. We want this to be provided prior to appro- val. I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I Hoi`inaton Group inc. I MEMORANDUM ITo: JoAnn Olsen, City Planner From: Fred Iloisington, Consultant ISubject: Review of Market Square PUD Date: 8-30-89 1 As requested, I have reviewed the Market Square PUD for conunercial I development on 1.2 acres of property located on the southwest corner of 'Vest 78th Street and Market Boulevard. I While a considerable amount of progress has been made with respect to the architecture of the building since the original summnittal, there are still numerous deficiencies in the site plan that warrant either reconsideration Ior modifications. The following are my comments: 1 . The four foot sidewalk adjacent to Market Boulevard should be widened to a minimum of five feet and be termed a public sidewalk. I 2. Though I believe they are intended to be wood-sided, I am uncertain about the materials to be used to face the columns. I3. Signage is not identified as to location, type or size as required by the PUD Ordinance. Pylon signs have not been designed. Since there are I no signs shown on the rear of the building, I can only assume that none are proposed and will not be requested at a later date. I4. The drugstore facade remains a non-wood surface. S. Douglas fir is used in front of the building where sightlines to the I. building should he maintained and Linden or deciduous materials are used in the rear where screening is imperative. This seems to be Ibackwards. 6. 1 am concerned about sightlines and snow storage within the parking I lot given the abundance of small shrubby-type materials in all of the parking lot islands. I I 7300 Metro B'va • 3u::e 525 • M nneapo!ts, MN 55435• (612) 835-9960 I HOI .I JGTC!N _ ;r . _ ^�- . 1 =•1: , - ) - ' --� - ,- - - 7. The four foot sidewalk through the parking lot should be widened and firs should not be planted on either side so as to impair the movement of pedestrians. ' S. The future parking adjacent to Market Boulevard should be redesigned in accordance with the attached drawing. 9. Fence materials to screen outdoor storage areas have not been ' identified. 10, There appear to be too few trash receptacles. I think they are being ' handled correctly but since no others are shown, I can only assume that no others will be requested. 11 . Screening is wholly inadequate along the south and west sides of the building. Clusters of Douglas fir occur along the south property line but have large spaces between them, Deciduous materials are used exclusively along the west side of the development where heavy screening is absolutely essential. 12. While we assume that a single-score block wall is a wall surfaced with ' stucco, we are not quite sure that that is the treatment that is proposed. 13. Parking lot lighting is not specified but could be included as a condition to be consistent with or the same as downtown lighting. 14. No additional detail has been shown for the Vet Clinic building. in 15. The site plan proposes that the City install the 72 inch storm sewer to connection along the south property line. It seems to me that that connection should be made by the developer at his cost, ' 16. The preliminary plat calls for a Lot 3 which I believe we have here-to- for termed an outlot. The whole idea was to maintain it as an outlot until such time as development is proposed. Since no development of any kind is proposed for the outlot, we would recommend that it. be excluded from the PUD. 1 I 2 I, It. . 7 ' CII I I 1 t 1..■_— SS , . 173' re cAlL * 1 . _ __ v '-"" PY - sign (..:—. ) (-41.7.1._ �� 20 20 , . 1 ; ss ; �' existing • , ,; • ,12, t ` bus I• 1 • :.. s. . ...«1-- ..e.• _ _.. .__. I 1 44 .11 .. i 1 t.1 r-- 77-1-1 ----t ' , • 1 . -4_....._..._ . .... _wry ..._ , F 1......... r- ___.♦ 1 . 1 .. ......_1. ' (..A. ) 1 , WWII, � ~ SIDEWALK I ' SS --' S'S PEA SWIPING k e- ,. 1 , 1 . ►' 'ENTRY i .. _ , . G 1 GROCERY STORE • 1 GROCERY STORE I.�' y - N 116' F X 138' O EXPANSION cc LSA Design August 30, 1989 Ms . Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Jo Ann, The following constitutes Plan Review for the Market Square Development for plans stamped August 16 , 1989 . ' P-1 SITE PLAN 1 . There are only three trash enclosures shown for the entire project . Where are the enclosures for the Grocery ' Store? 2 . Parking lot lights should be reduced in height to 25 ' to match the height of the lights on Market Boulevard. ' 3 . All outdoor storage locations should be enclosed with the same material which is used on the buildings - not a fence as labeled on the plans . ' 4. Vehicular circulation in front of the Hardware Store is poorly designed. 5 . There should be pedestrian striping in the parking bay lanes at the Pedestrian Walkway crossings . 6. The sidewalk along Market Boulevard should be 6 ' -0" wide and not 4' -0" as shown on plans . 7. The delivery dock at the Lawn & Sports shop does not ' appear to allow exit of a semi-trailer if cars are parked along the south edge. The outdoor storage area may have to be reduced in size to allow fluid movements . ' 8. The Grocery Store loading dock shows that semi-trailers will have to exit going the wrong way on a one-way street . P-2 CIVIL PLAN not reviewed 1 ' Suite 307 1624 Harmon Place Minneapolis,MN 55403 _ ' 612-339-8729 1 P-3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 . There should be evergreen trees along the west side of the project to provide year-round screening of the backs of the buildings . 2 . Evergreens should not be planted in the parking islands next to the Pedestrian Walkway. 3 . Parking islands should have both shrubs and deciduous trees , not just shrubs . 4. Screening along the south border still appears to be insufficient and tree locations will have to be modified if the 72" concrete pipe is installed as shown on P-2 . P-4 ELEVATIONS 1 . Signage, as stipulated by the City, shall be limited to two signs maximum per store. There are three signs shown for the Super Value Grocery Store . 2 . The building material for the wall masses appears to have changed to concrete block. Is this a misprint? 3 . Elevations do not show materials for outdoor storage area ' s . 4. Building elevations labeled 18 ' actually scale off the drawings at 20 ' . Elevations shown at 20 ' scale at 24 ' -8" . Are these labeling errors? Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments . Sincerel Jame Lasher ,ASLA • 1 cc: Fred Hoisington File 89-12 MEM I 1 �� ' tW TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENGINEERING URBAN DESIGN 1 BRW. INC THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 612 370-0700 FAX 612"370-1378 August 31, 1989 1 JoAnn Olson 1 Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 RE: Plan Review Market Square 1 Dear JoAnn, At your request, and in cooperation with the City Engineering Department, we 1 have reviewed the plan submittals for the Market Square project. We have reviewed the plan set dated August 16, 1989, which consists of Sheets P-1 through P-5, and a preliminary plat. Our review consists of and specifically 1 examines engineering (site) related issues. We have not reviewed the plan for compliance with planning, landscape or achitecturally-related ordinances or issues. Our review comments are summarized below: Site Plan (P-1) 1 #1 A note in the upper corner of the plan refers to "excess right-of-way to be dedicated to the project." To our knowledge this is right-of-way which is 1 in the control of the City of Chanhassen. Excess right-of-way of this kind must obviously follow the appropriate vacation statutes as required by law. It may not be in the interest of the City to vacate this right-of-way in 1 its entirety (see #2 below). #2 To the best of our knowledge, it is still the intent of the City of Chanhassen to construct an eight-foot wide bituminous pedestrian pathway 1 along the south side of West 78th Street from Monterey Drive to Market Boulevard. This pathway will likely be constructed as a part of the West 78th Street detachment project (Phase III) in 1990. The site plan should 1 reflect this future pathway. NOTE 1 The City may wish to have the developer construct this pathway to insure better coordination with the developer's site improvements. -- 1 SEP 051989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT RINGROSE.WOLSFELD.JARVIS GARDNER.INC GROUP 1 DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN B McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RALPH C BLUM DAVID L GRAHAM 1 MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG 1 JoAnn Olson August 31, 1989 Page 2 #3 Each of the access points (driveways) to the project should be carefully reviewed. The plans do not currently provide enough information for a thorough review, so we will limit our comments to the following: A. West 78th Street Driveway The original downtown redevelopment plan did not reflect a driveway at this location. Primary site access was intended from Market Boulevard. ' Although we interpret the driveway to be a right-in, right-out from the plan (given the West 78th Street median) , it should be clearly pointed out that the West 78th Street eastbound does not have a right turn lane for access to this site. Although similar situations exist within the downtown proper, the right-of-way was not available for the construc- tion of right turn lanes. This site and plan do reflect the fact that enough area is available to construct a right turn lane. The City may wish to require this. You may also wish to consider elimination of this driveway instead of attempting to focus all traffic to Market Boulevard. B. Market Boulevard Driveways Although significant information is not available to accurately deter- mine the suitability of both of these driveways, we are in general agreement with the plan layout and location. The northerly driveway shows an entry width of twelve feet. It may be desirable to widen this. C. Monterey Driveways ' Similar to the Market Boulevard driveways, we are in basic agreement with the driveway locations. Again, there is no radius or driveway width information available to be examined. Although Lot 3 is shown as an outlot, the future development of this parcel is critical to this area. The site plan does not address access to this parcel at all . Some type of access for this parcel should be addressed at this time if this is a future developable lot. #4 Signage ' Adequate signage (traffic signs) for this site will be very important. With the one-way system along the west and south sides, proper signage locations and quantities are critical . The developer should submit a signage layout for City review. 11 Joann Olson August 31, 1989 Page 3 #5 Sidewalk The site plan shows a four-foot sidewalk along Market Boulevard from the south side of the northerly driveway to the south property line. This sidewalk should be carried to West 78th Street to connect to the proposed eight-foot bituminous pathway. If this is to be a City maintained walkway, it may be desirable to increase the width to six feet. ' #6 Trash Enclosures The developer may wish to eliminate any parking stalls which block the trash enclosures, allowing free access to these enclosures. #7 Drive-thru North of Retail ' The retail area (5,400 SF) on the north end of the project shows a drive-up window. The available area for stacking is very limited. Depending upon ' the type of retail , this may be of concern. Civil Plan (Sheet P-2) A. Sanitary Sewer #1 The sanitary sewer service to the Vet Clinic looks acceptable. The ' six-ich PVC may be oversized for the clinic. To provide the appropriate cleansing velocity, a four-inch may be more desirable. #2 The existing ten-inch sanitary sewer currently runs in a sixty-foot easement from Monterey Drive to the east side of the site. The deve- loper has shown the construction of a building over this sewer line. The construction of a private building over a public sewer main is highly unusual , and certainly not desirable. Sanitary sewer under a building is not unusual to the extent that all businesses have their own building sewers underneath their floor slabs. However, they key ' here is that it is a public sewer. If this is deemed acceptable, we recommend that the sewer main be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing which clearly extends beyond ' the limits of any building footings or sidewalks, and that the sewer main be properly blocked or encased in the ductile iron casing. Although rerouting of the sanitary sewer will be very expensive, it is preferable to the current alternative. Another alternative is to avoid building construction over this sewer. I I 11 JoAnn Olson 1 August 31, 1989 Page 4 ' #3 Service Stubs to Retail Center i These service stubs appear acceptable and reasonable for this project. The developer's engineer should verify all sewer flows to insure proper service sizing. These should also be constructed in accordance with the appropriate building codes for service lengths, cleanouts, etc. B. Water Main #1 The proposed water main plan for the site appears reasonable. Verification of the fire hydrant locations should be made by the Fire Marshall. #2 Because of past experience with water breaks of the ten-inch CIP water main which runs west to east through this site, it may be in the best interest of all partners to have this main replaced with ductile iron pipe now prior to completion of the parking lot. The depth of the existing main may also be of concern. It should be noted that although the downtown project replaced some of the existing CIP in the Filly's parking lot, we did not replace all of it. C. Drainage ' #1 The plan refers to the extension of the existing 72-inch storm sewer along the south property line to be designed and constructed by the City. Is the City willing to do this? #2 Some time ago, a drainage easement was acquired from the property owner by the City for storm water retention. Recent hydraulic calculations have indicated that this easement can be vacated, dependent upon the final plans of Mn/DOT along TH 5. Specifically, if Mn/DOT does not expand north of TH 5 farther than originally anticipated, and this does not encroach into the storm water detention pond, there is enough storage availability to accommodate this site. We are currently rerunning these calculations to once again verify this. #3 The developer's engineer should supply the City with all storm sewer ' sizing calculations for City review. #4 Initial calculations indicate that there may not be enough storm water ' catch basins to have adequate capacity to receive all storm runoff. If this is true, the developer should anticipate temporary ponding of storm water in low areas. ' I II JoAnn Olson August 31, 1989 Page 5 ' #5 Based upon the plan, it appears as though all roofs will be drained by a scupper or "external " roof drain system. Careful placement of these roof drains should be considered par- ticularly in pedestrian walkway areas. Additional detail should be submitted on this. Preliminary Plat #1 The preliminary plat does not reflect new easements for existing City sewer and water lines. It also does not reflect the existing sixty- foot right-of-way which is an extension of the Picha Drive right-of-way on the west, and is carried across the project to the east side. I do not believe the right-of-way documents were ever recorded with the County; however, they were executed several years ago. The City Attorney has these documents on file for further reference. ' #2 The right-of-way on the north side of the project must be vacated. The drainage easement on the south side must be vacated (at least partially). Miscellaneous ' The developer's grading plan does not illustrate the future grading along the Soo Line Railroad tracks. The intent here should be clarified and approved by both the City and the Railroad, if necessary. As the project progresses, additional detail should be provided which further identifies compliance with City standards for signage, utilities, etc. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, BRW, INC. -/ %% it 1 Gary A. Ehret, PE Project Manager GAE/sk ' cc: Mr. Gary Warren File 7-8815 1 r I 1 • 1 1 m FiZeAt rpiE_ =•41-4-14P NEST 78TH STREET I ekT#'/Vg, QeeELERq no.V •C•hvE Te '' IT'BLL�Q um Air 'lr--' IIIIII - - iv .� I 8 FT. MIRE 81031.41X `:, ••,, 1 ... i r `t' -4.VET - 42' X 12' I 4 3024 SF - , • I 121 - - 61N1111111111 \1 I 911 full I 1 3 / I 1 • /7 � 1 ' c e f 24* l I I • ' ' • ' ^ I 1 / r / c 1 I 1 ! t i �. 1 I I sip .R stop t. 1 `I • • Ut ‘....j !8 \ \ —.—am. t olrrM ID sign 4- / \ / --...' -1 cHcITHYAvsF Aor AN EN ~�Wr 890 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937'1900 N� MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, City Planner ~~ FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector N� DATE: September 13, 1989 SUBJ.: Market Square Shopping Center Site Plan Comments and/or recommendations: w� 1. Curbing shall be painted yellow as indicated on drawing. This is subject to change after construction if problem parking areas arise. 2. "No Parking Fire Lane" shall be installed as indicated by dots on site plan. Again, this is subject to change if N� parking problems develop. 3. The addition of two fire hydrants as shown on utility site N� plan. These are shown as approximate area only. o� k I 9 I 1 � ' r. ---- .4l *Est�tmsrUEEr s, i I / , nvfxn--sear fx�29J1�- 1747 MAe fCatl{ raw .r•eovcuw pp bewte� - jiir , -- ®ICAEDTO7NE PRC1ECf / I 1 © ° I go — Darin PROPERIYLIE 1 ' . (ad 1./. OM 1 / r< • I w I 7,/ lor ,41--- -- / / ® I ! I •Q. ' I. MIMS El • 0 .,awe Mel 121.,110 CAMEO w 1 • I �(\��R■ rf.. 1 Mil +rr�•1I }� Lw -. ( � CFA ( - - .' I \i OP qy R3■•■-:- -tk**44,4 El f MvRr asvEtNn AS IMMOMMATENT9E M LL tr213.0/ 4, v MAWS 4M 1 MVM]J _- t314 f 9.tq telva 9K47 4 r l = _ MV R. 1 ORATE� .f.r C IN ,l* ' C _• -g ) I I I / L* ! ?f ."l. 4 I I�Y © a TER■ K.. Rr /µMr.1frfYN0•l9a__CO Iry tl i fn mA °fir, O 1 111 I COI. � �.f .7 �-+ v+ `ivMir \�\\\ I "'r___ 2 GRATE / I C . \ © ` I If 7,4 k ° II 1 PM t• .Nisi. ~ / -.1.... �MVWr / C aeW • - _rfl...1 EXISTING 9512 MARKI MACK M agATER. " r CII�VYI rnRtl �� w •g.H.�-AM a�ypo. 955.7 GRADIN ,RICK SCALE:1' 1 9554 TAMS( cJ Ala._,.,t i tc 44 7 4- I 1 1 . - 1 ----------J L--________ I •wine•"" WEST 75Th STREET � 1Er£ 1 /LTri4= fEEi 'io "Elf 0 ', avARESwTE .� 1!I I U I i I I 1 7LE,SSTNGPWWEHTYLIE , ' ,. 1 I 4 / 101•X96' O K.7 71 / 99µ8F Icy I Pfd I �M / HOTEL .. ' cuccalsicm aft i O _iETAL- 1 1, .0. I ti 341i SF Id I I U :: 72. 8S 2 i !� MSMD ii i - -� - - -i �•♦ r t 1 Q ! 16 /6_ • 16 ID_ " 16 16_ w H 16_ • _- `.P s I rin zo 1i— la i_ 1NCLUB ME M MI RETAL •I Y 81 - _ 56 i k 0 � • w f � I 1z r; � 1 /) WAN MP SPORT RE 132 136X70' 51908E 76•FX fir D ObCERYSTI7E GRXEIT1'SIOE - ��V 10140 SF 7446 IF 116 F X 136 D EXPMiiCN 444.1 \ criKPRCPDSED + 760065 151 xSF -- - 1 - -- r��it 15130SF - w •LI ADdT[X! SAFE L! : _ js We W1v 1 1111 _ N.... Nr. ; �� c• wE.g.PMI• 1 ISITE PLAN 1"•50'-0" I 1e(I c6...r !):C• •}.` cr tor3 ��o PGri1 ` •Y'c \ G,,.,e 11 S•} ,ns I SEP , 1 =O 05:40 EF,-I I C. P. mammy 1 r'Ar.r,tr■; —ILJLJ URBAN cEsIGi: BRA: Ir4. - f�RES-I_F:jQ•.ARt 'nr. ' v t4U V"d^E Ar _ . MINNESOTA , =^�i%'lE o'_:j?(:-i-'�^. F:,% 61?3/.2•1271 September 14, 1989 ' JoAnn Olsen I Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Review of Revised Plans for Market Square Development , Dear JoAnn, We have completed a review of the revised plan submittals for the Market Square , project, as requested. The new plans, dated September 8, 1989, include modifi- cations in response to our August 31, 1989, letter of review and comment. The scope of this review includes the examination of these modifications, as well as an additional general overview of the engineering (site) related issues asso- ciated with the project. Our comments in response to the plan modifications are summarized below: Site Plan (P-1) #1 An eight-foot wide concrete sidewalk has been included along West 78th Street in response to our comments. The City may prefer that the sidewalk be specified as bituminous path to match the bituminous bike path proposed along West 78th Street as a part of the future Downtown Redevelopment Phase III construction. #2 The City may prefer not to vacate the excess right-of-way along West 78th Street in its entirety to accommodate the sidewalk/bituminous path, and the right turn lanes at the driveway entrance. The City would maintain control over the sidewalk/bituminous path by keeping the northernmost portion of the right-of-way. #3 The 20 and 16-foot radii specified at the entrance driveways appear ' acceptable. #4 No further information has been provided concerning the development of Lot 3. Access to the parcel , and the construction of a sidewalk along Market Boulevard should be addressed if the issue has not been resolved. ' -HZ_Etn..EIT✓LGf JPF °. L.Air•S EAX2'::.^ 1:: t-v ji ..•.YL F-P'..T' !�. _� iii__ SE :del-. .'P '.,pF cry- nC•.�� !rnf+_ _ ^�� -•1:4 0:•14— —sr. .FF ce: :A+`. i.ly. . _ - MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST. PETERSBURG ' SEP 14 =is 018:40 EhPW IN':. P.3 4 JoAnn Olsen September 14, 1989 Page 2 #5 Modifications have been made to the sizes and shapes of some of the parking lot islands. In general , the changes have improved the parking lot configuration. Civil Plan (Sheet P-2) IIA. Sanitary Sewer ' #1 The City may desire that casing details be provided on the plans for the ten-inch sanitary sewer which runs under the proposed building on the site. The proper completion of this work is important to alleviate ' some of the concern regarding this condition. . B. Water Main ' #1 The revised water main alignment appears acceptable. Concerns regarding the condition of the existing ten-inch CIP water main which runs west to east through the site are eliminated by the abandonment of the pipe. C. Drainage ' #1 It is our understanding that the City is not willing to perform the extension of the existing 72-inch storm sewer along the south property line. The plan should be modified to note that the storm sewer work is ' the responsibility of the developer. #2 An additional catch basin (CB 2A) has been added on the south side of the parking lot. This modification will improve drainage in this area. Storm sewer sizing calculations should be obtained from the developer to determine the adequacy of the system and the occurrence and extent of storm water ponding. Preliminary Plat ' . #1 A revised preliminary plat for the development was not included for review. The comments presented in our original letter of review should be considered if no changes have been made to the plat to date. SEP 14 '89 08:41 EPH :tiC. P.4 4 II IIJoAnn Olsen September 14, 1989 Page 3 I It is hoped that the preceding information, in conjunction with our initial II comments, provides you with adequate information to complete your review of the Market Square development plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesi- tate to call . I Sincerely, BRW, INC ,,,,, II , ....... rg?i ' I G- ry A. Ehret, PE Project Manager I GAE t sk cc: Mr. Gary Warren I File 7-8815 I I I I I I 1 ' LSA Design I September 12 , 1989 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen Box 147 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Jo Ann, The following constitutes Plan Review for plans dated September 11 , 1989 for the Market Square project. SITE PLAN - P1 1 . Trash compactor behind Super Value should have a 6 ' -0" wall around it similar to the outdoor storage areas. 2 . Dumpster locations along the west side should be surrounded by earth, opaque fence, or a combination of both for 6 ' -0" height . 3. Pedestrian walkway through the main parking lot should extend out to the sidewalk .along Market Boulevard. CIVIL PLAN - P2 1 . The City should not have to design and install the 72" pipe along the south property line. ' LANDSCAPE PLAN - P3 - ' 1 . Ornamental and Shade trees should be planted along the building facades to break up the massing. 2. There should be additional evergreens planted along the south property line. ELEVATIONS P4 ' Suite 307 , 1624 Harmon Place Minneapolis,MN 55403 t ' 612-339-8729 ' ,S- 1 I . Do the new roof sections go through the entire width of , the building. 2. Sections showing the relationship between this development and Highway 5 were requested but never received. These should be reviewed to verify the Developers statement that the majority of the roof area will be hidden by vegetation and grade change . 3. The Pylon sign appears to be to large. (60sf to 80sf is City Code. ) Please feel free to contact me with any questions or , comments regarding this review. Sincere Ali James B. Lasher 1 j .i. LAND USE CONSULTANTS Hoisington Group Inc. MEMO To: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and JoAnn Olsen, City Planner ' From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant Subject: Review of 9-8-89 Market Square PUD Plans Date: 9- 12-8 9 ' Hoisington Group Inc. has reviewed the most recent Market Square PUD Plans as requested by City Staff. We feel that the plans have been improved dramatically as a result of the last round of comments made by 1 the City Staff and its consultants. We have relatively few comments that should be considered in the course of the approval or attached as conditions to the PUD as follows: ' 1. Signage - Si na a details (size and type) have net been identified as ' required by the PUD Ordinance. While we assume that each shop will have a sign on the front of the building, we can only assume that signage on the rear of the building will be in accordance with the ' south and west elevation plans and will be limited exclusi%ely to the liquor store, hardware, video store, drugstore and SuperValu. While the pylon sign concept is consistent with the Market Square architecture, these should be limited to SO square feet. 2. Lardscapiag ans. Screening - While a considerable improvement ' has been made to the landscape plan, the screening of loading docks, and especially those belonging to the hardware and SuperValu, is still inadecl*ate. We would suggest that some coniferous shrubs be usea in front of the building to provide some color during winter and we would also recommend that compact viburnum be used in front of the ' building in lieu of regular viburnum. 3. Trash Receptacles - We agree with the way trash recept.tcles are ' handled but we feel that there will be great pressure to have additional facilities. It must be understood that since this is a PUD and the plan will dictate use, no other receptacles will be allowed than those shown on the plan. We can only assume the the hardware store receptacle will be located within the outdoor storage area based on the present plan. 7300 Mato 4!vd. •Suite 525• Minneapoli;, MN 55435• (612)835-9960 I 1 1 4. jarring Lot Lighting, - There are still no lighting details but this I could be included as a condition to be consistent with or the same as downtown lighting. 5. 511 -m Sewer - The Plan once again proposes that the City de design and install the 72 inch storm sewer connection along I line. This should be made to be the responsibility of the developer. 6. t, - The preliminary plat is missing from this presentation of the I PUD. The area for which no corn mittment is being made should be included on the Preliminary Plat as an outlot and a c mmitttmens made to use to-since Concept Stage approval is proposed given. I committment should include the number of square feet of commercial floor area and open space and the number of parking spaces. 7 . i' e-UP window - This proposed facility has serious stacking limitations which simply will not work for certain kinds of drive-up • businesses. The Planning Commission should reserve the right to and should specifically exclude af,protie the use on a case by case basis ar. I drive-up restaurants as a condition of PUD approval. The developer should be required to demonstrate that he drive-up windows can accommodate the use at the time approva l requested. 1111L8. West 78th Street Access. - The construction of the acceleration/ deceleration lanes should be the responsibility of the developer. ' 1 1 1 CITY OF 1P4,0if CHANHASSEN 'Or 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector 1 DATE: August 22, 1989 SUBJ: #89-2 PUD 1 Based on plans submitted, eight handicap parking places are ' required for initial site. A total of eleven handicap parking places will be required after future expansion is complete. Spaces must be distributed along the length of the building at the spaces closest to buildings. The building as proposed with 78, 712 square feet must be Type II 1 - F.R. construction. As an alternate, a two-hour area separation wall may be built, creating two buildings. The Lawn and Sport Store will be a B-1 occupancy; this would be an ideal place to build the area separation wall since an occupancy separation will be required. 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I ''' :-- _ _ -=_-' ,4- -7_ ___--- __ ___--- ..4w,74_„, __ _ _ __ ,• __ _ _________ ________ 1 1 1 I I II 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1