Loading...
1h1. North Side Parking Lot, Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for Med Arts Bldg IN , . CITY OF ............_.... 1 ,.. ,0 C 11 AN 11 A S SEX 1 _. _ .. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ,;'tam t,y c;ry Administrator I __c .)Ci MEMORANDUM dcrs' ______. .1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' a ,i_.-p_-"_"".—`- FROM: Steve Hanson, Planning Director I DATE: May 3 , 1989 Date Submitted .0 GcJnull - 2, -211 ISUBJ: Preliminary Plat Approval and Site Plan Review of Final Facia, Signage, Exterior Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking Layout Configuration for Chanhassen Professional Building I The Planning Commission at its April 19 , 1989 meeting approved I the preliminary plat for the north side parking lot subject to the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" . I Regarding the site plan approval, the Planning Commission recom- mended approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions : I1 . No business may have more than one wall sign. I2 . No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3 . Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. 4 . Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. IThis motion was approved on a 4 to 3 vote. I The Planning Commission discussion on the site plan centered on three issues . The first of those was the sidewalk extending from Heritage Park Apartments across the parking lot in the direction of the clock tower. Generally, the Commission felt that addi- 1 tional signage or definition of this pedestrian crossing through the parking area should be added. Concern is that small children using the crosswalk would not be visible due to cars parked on I either side of the crosswalk. They requested that this be looked at closer by traffic engineering. Therefore, I have contacted BRW and requested that they be in attendance at the Council 1 meeting on May 22 , 1989 to address this particular issue. I MO- .. . II Don Ashworth May 3, 1989 Page 2 The second item of concern deals with the entrance and the , adjusted parking configuration by the Riviera. There was a pre- ference expressed for the access as it comes in to allow a right turn into the first bay of parking along the professional building rather than having to go all the way to the back of the parking lot to get into that parking. The adjusted configuration was arrived at after meeting with the Kruegers, owners of the Riviera. A copy of a memo from Fred Hoisington summarizing this meeting is attached to this memorandum ( Attachment #6) . It should be noted that this particular adjustment to the parking is in Phase II and the approval at this time would be for the parking configuration for Phase I. The third issue that was raised by Commissioner Batzli was the same concern he had raised when this item was before the Planning Commission previously. That issue is the need for the access west of Great Plains Boulevard on West 78th Street. His feelings are that this access should be closed and that allowing it to remain in this vicinity only complicates the traffic flow at the intersection by the clock tower. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the north side parking lot based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" . Further, staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. 1 Attachments 1. April 19 , 1989 Planning Commission minutes . ' 2 . Preliminary plat for the north side parking lot. 3 . Revised parking lot layout. 4 . Final facia and signage plans. 5 . April 19, 1989 staff report. 6 . Memo from Fred Hoisington dated May 8 , 1989 . 1 1 1 1 1 no- Planning Commission Meeting IApril 19, 1989 - Page 20 Isomething like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes , that' s a PUD? IBatzli : I think if they were to. . . Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little. . . I think parking ' s a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it' s on a Islope. . . Ellson: I can picture it. . . IConrad : Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? Emmings : Yes . IConrad : And those are. . .what you discussed? Emmings: Yes they are. IConrad : . . .you don ' t think the developer could never achieve? IEmmings: I would like to see them move this project. . . If Lot 14 doesn ' t have any development. If we lower some density. I don ' t know what can be moved . . . The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the Isize of the apartment building . I 'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced . IConrad : I guess you ' ve heard that we haven ' t' r_uled the PUD out . There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on . The numbers in certain cases look really great to me . I could go with a IPUD. Therefore, I guess what we' re saying, the consensus would be, other than Dave. IHeadla : I 'd like to see the portion. . . Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can muddle through some of the comments that we made. Work with you and see Iif you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us . IBatzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . IPUBLIC HEARING: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 IIWEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: ``-A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. IB. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. II Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 21 Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: I want to just say a couple comments then Arvid Elness is here from Arvid Elness and Company. This will be the first, I don' t know if you guys have seen the color rendering. This is the apartment building in the back and that' s the. . .we' re proposing on this part right here. Then Phase 2. . . At the request of the City we dropped Phase 3 here as part of our program. . . That gives you an idea . I ' ve asked Arvid to address, the signage issue I guess I want to talk about too. The signs are kind of. . . We need the signs permitted by the ordinance. . . It' s back lit. It's that ban, what do you call it. If you look at something like Gelco. That sign. That kind of sign that we' ve got a dark opaque feeling and the letters are cut into that opaque. Arvid can address facia. . . Arvid Elness : I ' ll just make a couple points . This is the soffit plan. Two things that were addressed here. . . We did a number of studies and I guess our feeling architecturally had to do . . .one is a matter of . . . The second is the fact that these elements are standing out in front of this building and I feel personally that they shouldn' t be distinguished as a feature or element that is different than the main building. I think it will look like a simple building with some large brick high risers here standing and the facade standing out in front of it with a change of naterial . I notice the material used on that free standing element that '- stand out in front of it will characterize the theme of what should have proper materials and should feel like they' re integrated in the design so our thinking is to take the same materials that we' re using . . .so this element here looks like a part of this building and not distinguish it as something different. In doing that, the materials of the main building are like lap siding . They' re cedar lap siding and cedar shakes on the upper part and then our color ban that will wrap around the building. So in doing that we just brought those materials forward and put them on the front here. . .because this is really a free standing sort of spacial form out in front and it creates a shadow. Creates some interest and also gives us the opportunity to put some identification on there. Brad asked what the signage said. . .we' re talking about . We did some studies as to ways we could do it on a professional type building and I think the. . .was that it was because part of the design of the building integrated and was well controlled. . .color ban of the building or could be used to introduce some backing . Then it sort of looked like part of the archtectural . . . So it's sort of designed and integrated into the building and to have. . .as opposed to a more commercial type brackets of signage where there ' s a certain amount of freedom through the signage to create an identity and mark. . .so I think we ' re comfortable that with the bannage system that goes above the entry at eye level . . . The problem with the drawings was that we submitted Friday without identifying what we had agreed to as the quantity of the potential site . . . So the two issues I have I guess are the choice of materials on the exterior of the building and I think that ' s in character with what I 'm seeing in Chanhassen at this point and what ' s ._ .zappeni.ng around town . These are materials that are very common place. . . Brad Johnson: What about the lighting? s II Planning Commission Meeting IApril 19, 1989 - Page 22 IArvid Elness : Then the City has some lighting plans that we looked at for our standard ones that were going on the street. . . The lighting for the parking is taken care of on the plan . What we tried to do beyond that is I because this element which stands out in front of the main building has sort of a void, a space between it ' s. . .we put standard lights on the back side of these high risers that stand out here so at night each one of Ithese main areas will be lit indirectly to the back side so they' ll glow with it' s own light. Then the city standards out there with the light. . . So we' ll do some architectural lighting as we call it in these areas and every place they refer around the building. We' ll probably put some light Iin the cupola on the roof up here . . . Those are the lighting ideas that we have. Signage I 've explained. The sign ban. . . ' Conrad : Anything else? IEmmi.ngs moved , Ellson second to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Headla : I have no problems with the signage. . . . The sidewalk there . I Iforesee that to be a . . . That' s the way I look at it. I 'm concerned about the skateboards coming down there, whatever . Are we putting up traffic signs or parking signs? te I'- Hanson : No . We ' re not proposing to put speed limit signs . Conrad: I think everybody' s going to have the same kind of questions . ISteve, maybe you can help us on this , or Brad . The last time this was in, we were concerned where the sidewalk ran across the traffic . . . We talked about speed bumps . We talked about signs . You eliminated the speed Ibumps. You eliminated the signs and basically what you' ve done is painted the walk so can you give us more rationale for that? IHanson: I personally don ' t see that as a problem. . . look at from a traffic standpoint and their recommendation was striping was more than adequate . . . Speed in the parking lot is not that bad and we should be able to. . . bringing those islands out and creating parking stalls lets you know Ithere' s something happening there and we can put in pedestrian crossing signs . In my opinion , that ' s what we can do and that ' s. . . IConrad: Are they going to, the pedestrian traffic, are they going to go through this or are they going to go around? Are there other sidewalks that they' re going to use? IHanson : I think some of the traffic will go around that way. The other question, if somebody' s walking , why are they walking in there? I can see them walking . . . Kenny' s Market to buy groceries and then carry them back. . . IHeadla : I 'm not concerned about people carrying groceries. I 'm concerned about young people on skateboards and bicycles . If you ' ve ever had an Ioffice by a window on the second or third story or higher. above a parking r_lot . Haveyou ever noticed those speeders in the parking lot? It ' s atrocious the way they can speed. I ' ve been hit in a parking lot . . . It sr II Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 23 ' C happens. All the rationale says it shouldn' t, there are speeders . . . I I simply can not believe. . . I want to see something to make that sidewalk safer . Wildermuth: I had a problem with the sidewalk. . . Batzli : Did I miss something or isn' t the lighting of the building going to be. . .? Brad Johnson : It' s all provided by the City as part of the parking lot so it's part of your site plan. Hanson : The other lighting was what the architect had mentioned . . . Brad Johnson: I don' t have a lighting plan because the lighting plan is the parking lot plan that BRW put out . Batzli : The access here, the left area. . .access east . . . That' s the one I talked about last time. . . Ellson : I don ' t like the . . .parking . . .juts around . I agree with Dave. I think the thing that bugs me most about all this is, we naturally thi.nk. . . then it stops and then you' ve got this distance open but this goes right through and there are parking places on this side and parking places On this side and there' s a sidewalk in the middle. Normally a person on the sidewalk is hidden behind two cars until they get out in there and I . . . and I don ' t like that . I think there should be speed bumps , stop signs . . . Emmings: I have the same reservation . I essentially feel that . . . I don' t have any problem with anything except the sidewalk directing traffic . . . What Dave says about kids on skateboards and little kids walking, they can walk out between two parked cars. If they' re 3 1/2 feet or shorter , the driver doesn ' t have a chance to see them and they don ' t have a chance to see the car . You' re creating a situation where I think it ' s. . .driving down streets , you' re always thinking about kids coming out between cars. It ' s happened to me. I didn ' t hit them but other people have and we' re creating that situation. I think maybe widening it out . Eliminate some of the parking spaces on each side of that sidewalk. . .sight lines , that would help. Having a painted crosswalk I think would be , I think that' s what we asked before. To me that' s essential . I 'd put stop signs there . . . . stop at that sidewalk at least until I was absolutely satisfied through it's use that the traffic on the sidewalk didn ' t warrant stop signs . I 'd start with that and then make them prove that it wasn ' t necessary. Then we'd just have. . . Tim Erhart ' s discussion could not be heard on the tape . Conrad: . . .yet from the apartment building standpoint, they' re going `��o . . . It ' s probably going to be there . It ' s fairly straight . I 'd have to go along with Steve. I think it may be a little bit of overkill but I think it should have some kind of si.gnage . That ' s my only comments . I like the lighting. I like the signage. Is there a motion? I guess we li ' ' I' Planning Commission Meeting IApril 19 , 1989 - Page 24 C Ihave to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. Is there a motion? IEllson moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . IIEmmings : I guess I was a little confused about what exactly. . . was the preliminary plat? . . .sidewalk issue . IHanson: The sidewalk issue is part of the site plan. That was the first document. . . IBatzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to Ithe plans stampted "Received April 14 , 1989" . All voted in favor and the motion carried. IConrad : Is there a motion for the site plan? Headla : . . . 1989 with the following recommendations. The three listed. IT'he first two. Pedestrian signs be added to crosswalks . I 'd like to go to number 3 on the opposite page. Traffic engineer should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed IIbumps to maximize accessibility. Conrad : Is there a second? The motion fails for lack of second . Is Ithere another motion? Erhart : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend Iapproval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" with the conditions, number 1 as is. Number 2 as is . Number 3, did you start out by saying what? IHeadla : It ' s on the opposite page there . Number 3. IErhart: Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. And item number 4, to review the Iwest access to increase access to the area for . . . To review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot . . . Hanson : Is the intent to try and get the access coming back towards IIthe. . . ? I 'm just trying to clarify that . °�Emmings : Did the Public Safety Director and Fire Department review this plan for the access? They did?' Conrad : Is there a second to Tim' s motion? is Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 25 Elison: I ' ll second it. Erhart moved , Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior . 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. ' Erhart , Elison , Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor of the motion. Batzli , Conrad and Emmings voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . ( 3atzli : My reason is, I still don' t like the eastern entrance to the South. The eastern most southern entrance. Emmings: It just emphasizes the sidewalk issue. I can' t approve the plan the way it is . PUBLIC HEARING: COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL, ' INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD. B. REZONING A PORTION OF BG DISTRICT TO CBD DISTRICT LOCATED BETWEEN ' MARKET BOULEVARD AND LOT 4, CHANHASSEN MALL. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 80 UNIT HOTEL. ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the above three items . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order on the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning issue. Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 11, 1989" with the following conditions : 1- • - C ITY O F P.C. DATE: April 19, 1989 cm C.C. DATE: May 8 , 1989 �®CATEAtialls \ 71' r 1 CASE NO: 89 Sa- ll • Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT 1 IPROPOSAL: A) Preliminary Plat Approval B) Site Plan Review of Final Facia Signage and Exterior I Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking Layout Configuration ILOCATION: North of West 78th Street and East of 480 West 78th n� Street I.L. IAPPLICANT: Lotus Realty P.O. Box 100 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II ' PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District IACREAGE: DENSITY: IADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-12; proposed Heritage Park Apartments IS- CBD; commercial use a IE- CBD; commercial use 0 W- CBD; commercial use I W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is level I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial 1 North Side Parking Lot April 19 , 1989 ' Page 2 The site plan for this area, which is the location of the Chanhassen Professional Building was approved by the City Council at the February 27, 1989, meeting. That approval was subject to the following conditions : 1. Platting the area. 2 . Submittal of final facia, signage and exterior building ' lighting for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits . 3 . Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the ' east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. 4 . Direct staff to have the consultants review the intersection to see if there is any possible alternatives and if possible have a modified alternative by March 13th. Since that time the plat has been prepared for the property. The plat creates two building sites around West 78th Street and outlots generally to the rear of those two buildable lots for the parking areas that will serve these buildings. The site plan has been amended to modify the location on the pro- perty on the west end near the Riviera. These amendments were done in order to improve the parking situation for the Riviera Restaurant. In addition, the sidewalk locations were evaluated on the east end of the proposed Chanhassen Professional Building. It was felt the best alternative was to align the sidewalk from the apartment building in a generally direct alignment with the clock tower. Then also a pedestrian link was made from that area over to Colonial Center. In evaluating means for making the pedestrian crossings through the parking area visible, it was ' determined the best solution was to put in large cross walk painted areas lined up with landscaped features between parking stalls . It was felt that the use of speed bumps in the parking lot would not improve the situation for these cross access ways and that stop signs would be inappropriate in these locations . Pedestrian signs could be added to emphasize where the cross walks are. The City Council asked staff to evaluate the access at the inter- section of West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard. In looking at this, no other alternatives were identified other than eliminating this particular access . This access was a negotiated item with the property owners in the area as part of the overall redevelopment of this entire area. The Engineering Department has indicated this access, while not the most ideal situation, is acceptable from an operational standpoint. 1 I. . North Side Parking Lot ' April 19 , 1989 Page 3 The applicants have sumitted facia, signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission review. The applicants arepro- posing one free standing identification sign of 20 square feet to U be located at the southwest corner of the building in Phase I . This sign will be 3 ' 6" in height. On the back side a free standing directory sign is proposed to be 4 ' 6" high and 3 ' 6" ' across . On the face of the building back lit sign bands are pro- posed over three of the entrances these are 36 square feet in size. On the south elevation another sign band of the same size is shown in the middle of the building. The signage proposed ' complies with the zoning requirements, provided that no occupant may have more than one wall sign. ' The plans note only one light to be located in the patio area. No other exterior lighting is proposed on the exterior of the building. The other site lighting is part of the parking lot ' improvements being done by the city. The proposed facia of the building is to be woodlap and shakertown siding, with ornamental grille work and railings on teh entrance features . The roof is to be asphalt shingles . Previously the entrance features were goint to be brick. No colors have been listed on the plans . The door and window ' materials are not noted. These should not be aluminum finish. RECOMMENDATION ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" . The Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" subject to the following ' conditions : 1 . No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. ' 3 . Pedestrian signs be added to cross walks in parking lot. ATTACHMENTS ' 1 . Preliminary plat. 2 . Site plan for north side parking lot. 3 . Site plan for Phase I Chan Professional Building. 4 . Elevations for Phase I Chan Professional Building. Hoisington Group Inc. - I Land Use Consultants MEMO - To: JoAnn Olsen, Planner and Don Ashworth, City Manager From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant Subject: Medican Arts and North Side Site Plan Review Date: 5-8-89 +;.. Based on the expressed concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the 'f..!Site Plan Modifications for the Riviera, it is important for me to explain the Purposes for the modification. First of all, Tom Krueger, the owner of the Riviera, expressed grave ' concerns about the original parking configuration. We met with him on two different occasions to identify his concerns and thereafter modified the plan to reflect something that he felt he could live with. In addition to our interest in satisfying Mr. Krueger's needs, there are other very important reasons why the Site Plan as Revised should be approved. ' 1. It detaches the isle nearest Phase II of the Medical Arts Complex further from West 78th Street and essentially provides more stacking distance and therefore less potential traffic impact on West 78th Street. 2. The "T" intersection as opposed to the "4-Way" intersection at the north end of the Riviera entrance is considerably less complicated because it will provide for many less turning movements. What this means is that circulation. will function better than it would with the original 4-way intersection. 3. The proposal as now drawn will put more traffic in the second isle north , of the Phase II Medical Arts Building which means that overall volumes in the nearest isle will be reduced. This will reduce pedestrian/ vehicular conflicts by giving pedestrians less traffic to cross as they approach the Medical Arts Building from the parking lot. In addition to these modifications, we strongly recommend that the entry to the west end of the Medical Arts Building be no more Suite Metro Blvd MAY 101989 Edina, MN 55435 (612)835-9960 CITY OF CHANHASSEN than an emergency exit and that it not have a sidewalk leading to that door. We also strongly recommend that at least the westerly one half of Phase II not have any retail occupants and especially not a restaurant that ' would conflict in any way with the parking needs of the Riviera. We would recommend that these conditions be attached to the approval of the final site plan. We have arrived at these recommendations with the help of Howard Preston, Traffic Engineer for BRW. We both feel very strongly that the site ' plan revision will produce a better traffic result and at the same time satisfy Torn Krueger'g needs and concerns'cerns' fo: adequate asking. 2 . I-- Hoisington Group Inc. I Land Use Consultants MEMO I To: Donald Ashworth, City Manager, and ISteve Hanson, Planning Director From: Fred Hoisington, Consultant Subject: Meeting with Tom and Lou Krueger on 3-13-89 IDate: 3-15-89 Jim Lasher, Rich Thomasgard and I met with Tom and Lou Krueger and Jim ' presented an alternative plan to that which was the subject of the original - i IPlan Review. The new plan provides approximately 8 additional ,parking spaces directly on what was the old Krueger property. It also changed the circulation but Tom and Lou are most supportive of it and I Ibelieve they went away with a very good feeling toward the City for having resolved their problem. II explained to them that the Site Plan would have to be amended and resubmitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. I I told them that it would be on the April 5 Planning Commission Agenda and that they should put that on their calendar so that they might attend. I went then and explained to Steve Hanson that it should be on the April 5 IAgenda for a Site Plan Amendment. Lou Krueger asked what the likely uses would be for Phase II of the - ' Medical Arts complex? She explained that they would have some concerns over a restaurant occupying a portion of that building that might compete Iwith them for available parking. I indicated that the kind of use proposed was for general and professional office and additional clinic occupants. I told Rich Thomasgard that it would be extremely important that we not have competitive uses in the west wing of the Medical Arts complex. In my later discussion with Steve Hanson, I suggested that we attach a Icondition to Site Plan Approval which would preclude restaurants and retail uses in at least the westerly half of Phase II of the complex. We I agreed that a condition also should be included in the Development Agreement for Phase II that would bind the developer to that condition. I Generally speaking, the meeting went extremely well and the Kruegers appeared to be satisfied with the results. I 7300 Metro Blvd. r Suite 525 MAR 17 1989 Edina,MN 55435 (612)835-9960 IL1TY OF CHANHASSEN