Loading...
10. Sketch Plan Reivew, Market Sq PUD / 0 C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Aug. 2, 1989' II \� caums:x C.C. DATE: Aug. 28, 1989 r r CASE NO: IPrepared by: Olsen/v il r� STAFF REPORT 1 , IPROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for a Commercial Shopping Center Z a VLOCATION: Southwest Corner of Market Boulevard and West 78t Street 78th a. IAPPLICANT: Market Square Partnership AMCON CI; 5775 Wayzata Blvd. , Suite 820 200 W. Hwy. 13 II St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Burnsville, MN 55337 1 II I PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District IACREAGE: 1. 2 acres II DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IO and CBD; Chan Bank & Realtor/Dr. Office IS- BG; vacant I � E- CBD; Filly' s and Hotel Site °C, -.t^7M15 .,tilt W- BG; Lakeshore Equipment �.- I L-I-1 -:-s � _ tip. WATER AND SEWER: The site has services available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Currently a vacant level parcel. 4 II '.IN SutoUried to +. -g 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial II • ID vv.. 14.1 % \ ,, ,- ,. (".! tk *-48117: " le, \ , ;-.,. ,) ilL ■ ._ soram .....z.1.7 oc, *A\ . : ow— ,(// ,_.„,_ ,,,,,„=,,,,,p , 00 , , .. • . Inv 1111 ca .1 / IIII li'E L A 4 . N RSA ��' ♦ ��� ) - ,c,.. .01) l o VIE I n�j,�, . it 03 6 711"-'44117:::Thille4P- s- 0 rid���,�,�Aid.+••:'= R4 R1 ! i . :�41 - • �1 ri►moral lin. 'alai R1 2 • .. . .n .n -�= , W ". �i . . • /1 �3�+� `fit"1'�9 � 1 ■ 11111 V A R D /. I Ma j � L•' 11"1 1 \ PARK i Lifri ' liff.:r )\ ,C WT FA , 1 Ala et '� � �_ •Q"• . , � � - l \ illthimofry4-I S \ AC F .i IG HWA '1111W... t l\, _� �• ` :�;;4, - -J ; .I 1 . "II 4 -. ( . ._. , j / /DAKO •• L• \RN E`Q- C/ cLE L XE SUS, N J I _J ir i i RD jvim L i � uo _ R , I 1 I . ' \ 71 - ` \! r a i '- I 86 TH ST - Paw 1 . Market Square Commercial PUD August 2, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-501 defines the intent of a PUD as to encourage creative site planning through the use of variety, sensitivity, efficiency, density, district integration and parks and open space. A PUD may only include those uses consistent with the ' general land use category for the area on the official comprehen- sive plan. The PUD ordinance does not have specific standards or regulations for commercial planned unit developments. Section 20-507 provides a general concept plan for a PUD allowing the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and general nature of the development for review by the Planning Commission and Council. I REFERRAL AGENCIES Engineering Department Attachment #2 Public Safety Attachment #3 ' Building Department Attachment #4 ' ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a commercial planned unit development for a shopping center located at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The site is zoned BG, General Business and has street frontage along the east, west and north ' side of the property. The applicant is proposing a shopping center with 73 , 000 square feet to begin with and future expansion for an additional 18 , 000 square feet. The applicant is also proposing an outlot to contain a veterinary clinic with 3 ,000 square feet and additional development which has not been deter- mined at this time. The shopping center is proposed to contain a grocery store, drug store, lawn and sport, liquor store, hardware store and general retail. The structure will be located along the westerly and southerly lot lines with future development in the northeast corner of the site. Parking will be located within ' the center of the site between the proposed shopping center and future development of the outlot. Additional parking will be located at the rear of the buildings for employees and truck ' traffic. The site plan is showing access from all streets with the main entrance coming from Market Boulevard and West 78th Street and service entrances from Monterey Drive. The building material is proposed to be a stucco-like finish with large expan- ses between the stores. 11 , 1 Market Square Commercial PUD August 2 , 1989 1 Page 3 The purpose of the concept plan is to allow the applicant to receive direction from the Planning Commission and City Council whether the PUD proposal is acceptable and should be pursued or if the PUD proposal is not meeting the intent of the ordinance and needs to be revised. The property is currently zoned BG which allows all of the uses proposed either as permitted or con- ditional use permits. The setbacks of the BG district are 25 foot front and rear yards and 10 foot side yard setbacks. The maximum height of structures is 3 stories or 40 feet and the maximum lot coverage is 70%. The site plan is meeting the set- backs of the BG district but is exceeding the maximum impervious surface coverage by 13% for a total lot coverage of 83%. The applicant is also proposing to share parking since the demand times for parking of the uses proposed on the site enable parking to be shared. Uses such as a movie theater and a restaurant have been suggested for the outlot on the northeast corner of the site which would have parking demand at different times then the gro- cery store, lawn and sport, hardware store, etc. To maintain the site as proposed, the applicant had two options 111 to pursue. The first would be to rezone the property to CBD and the second option would be to pursue a PUD designation. The Central Business District does not have minimum setback require- ments or a maximum lot coverage. If rezoning to the CBD district was pursued and approved, the applicant would be able to have the amount of impervious lot coverage as proposed. In addition, the 25 foot setbacks that are being shown on the plan would not have to be maintained. Rezoning the property to CBD does not allow all of the uses proposed with the plan. Outdoor storage and equipment rental are not permitted in a central business district. In order for these uses to be allowed, the applicant would also have to amend the ordinance or remove these uses from the site. In meeting with the applicant, staff did not feel that rezoning the property to CBD was the correct action to take. The location of the site is beyond where the CBD district should be extended to. In addition, a reduction of any control over imper- vious surface and lot coverage with a proposed commercial shopping center could result in overdevelopment of the site. Staff directed the applicant to pursue the planned unit develop- ment designation. By rezoning the property to PUD, the applicant would be able to increase the percentage of lot coverage, to have the uses as proposed and to share the parking. But in return for receiving the PUD, the city would have the ability to request higher architectural standards , increased creativity in the landscaping, and in the building design and structure. As previously stated, the zoning ordinance does not have specific 1 regulations for commercial PUD ' s and this would be the first ' opportunity to review such a proposal. The intent of the PUD I i . Market Square Commercial PUD August 2 , 1989 Page 4 used for residential developments could still be used as a guide- line g line in that creativity and additional amenities should be pro- vided in return for a PUD designation. Staff understands that the applicant is limited to how much money can be spent on the site due to the rental rates that can be demanded versus the ' square footage cost of the property. But, staff also sees this as the largest shopping complex within the City of Chanhassen and that it should be carefully designed so that it will be an ame- nity to the city. Staff does not feel that the current pro- posal provides enough creativity and amenities to be considred a PUD. The following list contains comments on the site plan that staff feels would improve the plan as a PUD. Site Plan 1 . The main entrance to the site from Market Boulevard should have a right-in/right-out lanes for easier access and the 12 foot aisles should be increased to accommodate such ' right-in/right-out turn lanes. 2 . Stop signs should be provided at the appropriate intersec- tions within the parking areas to better direct and control traffic. The stop signs should be located at either north/south or east/west directions . 3 . Restrictions should be placed upon the outlot stating that unless the future development of this site consists of a shared parking type use i .e. theater/restaurant, that the outlot should be required to provide all of its own parking on site. 4 . If it is determined that the future parking shown adjacent to ' Market Boulevard ( shown with dashed lines ) will only be necessary for certain busy periods such as holidays , then the applicant should design the area so that it can be used as parking during times that overflow parking is necessary and the remaining period it appears to be a grassed area with landscaping. 5 . Circulation directly in front of the hardware store is poorly designed and the two parking bays with 8 cars each should be reduced to allow for a straight movement along the face of the building. 6 . The applicant should provide plans showing the trash enclo- sure locations and their screening and also show how any rooftop equipment will be screened. Landscape Plan 1 . The landscaping does not meet the city minimum requirements of the ordinance. Although the amount of green space is 1 r II Market Square Commercial PUD August 2 , 1989 1 Page 5 reduced by 13%, creative and beneficial landscaping can still be provided. In return for receiving a PUD designation, staff believes that the number and size of landscaping should 11 be increased throughout the site including exterior screening and interior landscaping. Such interior landscaping should also include island landscaping within the parking area and additional landscaping along Monterey Drive and the south side of the center to further screen the service portions of the building. 2 . The landscaping plan should also include berming as required ' by the ordinance. 3 . Ornamental trees should be planted along the facade of the building to help break up the linear expanse of the develop- ment. 4 . Landscaping along Market Boulevard should continue along the outlot to the north to West 78th Street until development of that outlot occurs. 5 . A landscaped pedestrian sidewalk should be provided through the center of the parking area from Market Boulevard to the stores . Staff is suggesting that the hatched area shown in the parking area on Page 1 of the site plan should be con- verted to a landscaped pedestrian walkway. 6 . A sidewalk should be provided along Market Boulevard up to ' West 78th Street. Building, Elevation and Materials 1 1. The majority of the building will be a stucco-like finish. To date all new construction in Chanhassen is built of either wood and or brick. Staff is not suggesting that the whole shopping complex be made of brick which is very expensive, but the design of building materials should include brick or other types of material to break up the expanse and to provide a more appealing structure. 2 . The elevations of the shopping center need to be improved to I break up the expanse of the center. The larger stores are brought out towards the parking areas to break up the expanse but additional design features should be provided to make the building more appealing. 3 . Staff feels that the rear of the buildings which are acting as the service entrances for the stores , should be treated as such and that additional landscaping and berming should be provided to screen the rear of the buildings . Customers should not be attracted or directed toward the rear of the buildings. I Market Square Commercial PUD August 2 , 1989 Page 6 ' Signage 1 . The applicant is proposing two pylon signs, one along West 78th Street and one along Market Boulevard. The pylon signage proposed will have to receive a separate sign permit but staff is recommending that as part of the PUD designation ' that the city require creativity in the pylon signage rather than the basic 20 foot high sign on a single pole. The applicant has stated that they would request wall signage on both the front and rear of the store. As stated before, staff sees the back of the stores abutting Monterey Drive as a service area and that the rear wall signage would not be necessary since they should not be promoting customers to use the rear entrances . Small identification signs could be per- mitted. The Planning Commission and City Council have the opportunity to define what type, size and location of signage ' shall be permitted. Engineering ' 1. The applicant is proposing drainage (Page 2 ) to be directed to the south of the site along the southerly edge to an outlet which would go beneath the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Pacific Railroad track. Proposing to pipe the drainage in this area conflicts with the proposed landscaping along the southern edge of the property. The applicant must resolve this issue since it is necessary to have extensive landscaping along the southerly edge to screen service areas . SUMMARY Staff feels that the PUD designation would be the most appropriate for the site. Variances to the BG District would not ' be easily approved and staff is not in support of rezoning the property to CBD which would also include the request for amending the zoning ordinance to allow certain uses not felt to be appropriate in the central business district. At this time, the applicant wishes to receive comments from the Planning Commission and City Council on whether or not they would prefer to see the property designated as a commercial PUD and if so what the Commission and Council would like to receive in return for the PUD designation. Should the Planning Commission and Council not feel that a commercial PUD is appropriate for this site, then the i applicant would either have to pursue the current BG zoning and pursue variances or rezone the site to CBD and receive any necessary zoning ordinance amendments. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission was in favor of the project moving for- ward as a commercial PUD. The Planning Commission felt the improvements over the original plan were moving in the right , 1 Market Square Commercial PUD 11 August 2 , 1989 Page 7 direction. The Commission will be reviewing development A lans (site plan review) on September 6 , 1989. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The City Council should recommend whether they feel a PUD is appropriate for this site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 2 , 1989 . 2 . Memo from Building Inspector dated July 19, 1989. 3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated July 25, 1989 . 4 . Site Plan Review Questionnaire. 5 . Sketch plan. r 1 I 1 I 1 r I 1 II 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? Wilderrnuth 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 it- 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 1 , II 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 othe 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 work !' really well in this particular situation. We looked at the rezonings. We 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 in , 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 work' 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 all 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 11 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 II 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 schedule 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 being' 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 II 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 II 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 landscaping 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 in 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 II 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 type 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 I II . Planning Commission Meeting ' August 2, 1989 - Page 61 I 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. 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 ' 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. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 62 ' 47 Jim Winkles : With the site plan, the initial building that would go up is II 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 right 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 that 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 Cwhen they' re known . When we start construction, if we don ' t know what' s 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, II 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 II 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 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 as ill 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 the tops of their walls. They go all the way around the back. I think all of Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 63 these elements including the quarricos in front o I q 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 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 I right direction . That ' s critical that you go. . . Let' s just open it up foll anybody' s comments. Tonight is the night for comments. They' re asking fox 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 other' hand, I 'm looking at the clock and I 'm seeing it's 12:15. I 'm trying to be 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 II 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 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 II 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 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 other categories . Conrad : Let me respond quickly and I normally don' t do it but basically II 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 into 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 me 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 II gives them a little bit more property to deal with to put in parking lots. You' re right. Batzli : I guess the two biggest questions I had , I agree with the comments, that I think the architecture is, I like 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 be building . That wasn' t counting on that outlot area'. II . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 65 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 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 I( 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? # Ir- Jim Winkles : With the total development , yes . Batzli : I don' t know where you ' re squeezing it all bu Q 9 but okay. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 66 1 C C II onrad : What do you think? Are you concerned about the PUD? They would like to hear it. What would you like to change? Green space? Batzli : Yes. , Conrad: Bump it up? IIBatzli : Yes. Conrad : What would you do? I Batzli : I don' t know. Tear down paradise and put up a parking lot. Conrad: Okay. I 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 but 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. I Batzli : Sure. Well you' ve got a lot of businesses that are going to I" require a lot of traffic and a lot of people moving in and out . I agree, A■ 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 II getting a mish mash . Conrad: That' s right. I 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. II Wildermuth : But there ' s a lot of potential things. Conrad: There' s a lot more give and take in some of the designs . II Wildermuth : There will be some good construction materials or higher grade construction materials . Conrad : Yes, and you have that kind of leverage. Batzli : Are we leveraging? II Conrad : At 25 after , no . We' re just giving them our comments right now. II Erhart: Brian, this is general business. It' s not central business ( district . This is general and that district requires how much green normally? II II Planning Commission n Meetzng 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? 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 . I 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 . II Olsen: I told him to go home. Erhart : Is to take a pretty hard line on this architectural stuff . I 'm I 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 . Wildermuth: Burger Brothers off of. . . I 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 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 , I 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 II 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 II an image for the downtown area . Let' s get some nice t'_ees 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 II 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 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? 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 a II view or a front . Not a front but for signage and advertising of their I Planning Commission Meeting ' August 2, 1989 - Page 69 C 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. IConrad : 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? 11 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. ' Conrad: I don ' t know that signage will be bad over. there. Again,g n, 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 font 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 tight through the front door early in the morning with vans or very small trucks . Conrad: I 'm not wild about loading through the front . II Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 70 I 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 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? Jim Winkles: They would go in the back. They go in the back because 1 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 many' 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. I 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 . CITY ® F 1 � CHANHASSEN --\ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector ^��LI>' DATE: July 19 , 1989 SUBJ: #89-2 PUD 1 Based on plans submitted, nine 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 - 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 1 1 1 I 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: July 25, 1989 1 SUBJ: 89-2 PUD - Commercial Development For Southwest Corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard Attached is a site plan review as submitted by the Chanhassen Fire Inspector . Let me know if I can be of further assistance . 1 1 1 i 1 e I I t I 1' . . h 1 SITE PLAN REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of these questions is to determine the necessary requirements for 1 the prevention or minimizing of loss of lives and property. A committee of Jim Chaffee, Scott Harr, Dale Gregory and Mark Littfin will II determine the answers based on the site plan submitted by the contractor. The contractor may also be called for further verification. The results of the questionnaire will then be forwarded to Jo Ann Olsen with the 1 committee recommendations. Questions Non- ' Comply Compliance 1. Means of access for fire department apparatus shall be provided to all structures in planned building 1 groups in accordance with Section 3-1 and the appli- cable provisions of Sections 3-2 through 3-8. XX 1 2. Every dead-end roadway more than 300 ft (91 m) in length shall be provided at the closed end with a turnaround acceptable to the fire department. XX — II3. Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road Must be indicated on width and shall be constructed with a minimum radius drawing and approved of 25 ft (7.5 m) at the inside curb line and a radius by the Fire Department 1 of 50 ft (15 m) at the outside curb line. ----- ------- 4. Roadways shall be not less than 24 ft (7 m) wide pro- , vided no parking is allowed, not less than 30 ft (9 m) wide if parallel parking is allowed on one side, and ?-Need further details not less than 36 ft (10.5m) wide if parallel parking is allowed on both sides. ------- _______ 1 5. Parking in any means of access shall not be permitted within 20 ft (6 m) of a fire hydrant, sprinkler or N/A at this time 1 standpipe connection or in any other manner which will obstruct or interfere with the fire department's use of the hydrant or connection. _______ 1 6. "No Parking" signs or other designation indicating that parking is prohibited shall be provided at all normal Will review at later and emergency access points to structures and within 20 date 1 ft (6 m) of each fire hydrant, sprinkler, or standpipe connection. 1 7. Where no recognized water supply distribution system exists, appropriate access shall be provided for water supplies in accordance with the provisions of NFPA N/A 1231, "Standard Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting. " ____M • 1 Site Plan Review Questionaire ' Page 2 Non- ' Questions Comply Compliance 8. Fire lanes shall be at least 20 ft (6 m) in width ' with the road edge closest to the structure at least 10 ft (3 m) from the structure. XX 9. "No Parking - Tow-Away Zone" signs shall be posted in accordance with the instructions of the fire Will review at later department having jurisdiction and a method of date 11 enforcing such provisions shall be provided. 10. Fire lanes connecting to public streets, roadway, or private streets shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least 2 ft (0.6096 m) beyond each edge of the fire lane. 11. Chains or other barriers may be provided at the ' entrance to fire lanes or private streets, provided that they are installed according to the requirements of the fire department having jurisdiction. 12. The designation and maintenance of fire lanes on private property shall be accomplished as specified ' by the fire department having jurisdiction. 13. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 ft Drawing indicates 24 ' -' (7.5 m) clear width between rows of parked vehicles Will review further for vehicular access and movement. 14. At least three perimeter walls of structures and all I exterior doors into structures constructed as a part of a planned building group shall be within 200 ft (61 m) of an approved fire lane or street. XX , 15. Structures exceeding 30 ft (9 m) in height shall not be set back more than 50 ft (15 m) from a street, fire lane, or private street. (Exception: When any combination of private fire protection facilities, including, but not limited to, fire-resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation and automatic fire extinguishing systems, is provided and approved by the fire marshal as an acceptable alternative, 3-4.2 shall not apply.) I 16. All structures exceeding three stories in height and 3,000 sq. ft (279 sq m) in ground floor area and containing nonrated openings in exterior walls facing other structures shall be separated from other structures by at least 20 ft (6 m) of clear space between structures, and 10 ft (3 m) from a common property line. ' Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 3 Non- Questions Comply Compliance ' 17. Al least two means of access for fire apparatus shall be provided for each structure exceeding 30 ft (9 m) or three stories in height, not less than one of ' which shall be a fire lane, or street. XX 18. At least 14 ft (4 m) of nominal clearance shall be provided over the full width of streets, fire lanes, and other means of vehicular access. XX 19. Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be ' placed around structures in a manner so as to Will review landscaping impair or impede accessibility for fire fighting plan when available and rescue operations. 11 20. The location of structures and access to each structure shall be approved by the fire marshal before permits for construction are issued. Will review further 21. All structures more than three stories in height or over 50 ft (15 m) in height above grade and ' containing intermediate stories or balconies shall be equipped with a standpipe system in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 14, Standard for the ' Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems. Fire department standpipe connections shall be located within 50 ft (15 m) of a fire hydrant. 22. Water supply systems pP Y Y not publicly owned and in- stalled shall meet the minimum requirements of ' NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, or N/A at this time NFPA 1231, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban ' and Rural Fire Fighting, where no recognized water supply distribution exists. 23. Fire hydrants shall be provided in a ratio of at I least one fire hydrant for every 90,000 sq. ft (8370 sq in) of ground area or portion thereof Will review utility plan involved in the development. (Exception: This at a later date ' requirement shall not apply to land planned or left for other than structural development. ) Site Plan Review Questionaire ' Page 4 Non- Questions Camoly Cc�nnli ance 24. The fire flow requirements shall be not less than 11 that established by the fire department having jurisdiction. In cases where a water supply system consisting of mains and hydrants does not exist, the provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard on water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, shall apply. 25. Water supplies shall be capable of supplying the 11 required fire flow for at least one hour for fire flows of 1500 gpm (6750 L/min) at 20 psi (1.38 bars) or less; or for two hours for fire flow greater than 1500 gpm (6750 L/min) at 20 psi (1.38 bars) . (Exception: In those situations where the provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, are utilized, 3-6.2.2 shall not apply.) 26. The contractor or installer of water supply 1 systems in planned building groups shall demonstrate by actual test that the capacity of the water supply system will meet fire protection design requirements. Fire flow performance tests shall be witnessed by the At a later date fire department-and other authorities having jurisdiction who desire to do so. 27. Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 ft (91 m) unless fire department operations or technology would otherwise dictate increased spacing. For buildings exceeding 20,000 sq ft (1860 sq m) in ground floor area, a Will review utility ' fire hydrant shall be installed within 300 ft plan when available (91 m) of any portion of the building. Actual location of fire hydrants shall be as required by the fire department prior to installation. 28. Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be protected by barriers that will prevent physical Will review later damage from vehicles. 29. Fire hydrants shall be located within 3 ft (0.9144 m) of the curb line of fire lanes, streets, or private streets, when installed along such access ways. 30. Fir` hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the American water Works - Association. Site Plan Review Questionaire • Page 5 Questions Non- Ccmoly_ Canoliance 31. Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall be American 11 National Fire Hose Connection Screw Threads and shall be equipped with thread adapters when the local fire department thread is different. ' 32. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6-in. (15-cm) diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less than an 8-in. (20-cm) diameter main if the system is not looped or the fire Will review at a hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding later date 300 ft (91 m) in length. 33. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 ft (182.5 m) in length for main sizes under 10 in. (25 an) in diameter. 34. Fire department vehicular access to all structures under construction shall be provided at all times. In areas where ground surfaces are soft or likely to becane soft, hard all-weather surface access Will review later roads shall be provided. 35. The fire protection water supply system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and in service prior to placing combustible building materials for ' structures, or combustible pretested fabricated building assemblies on the project site or utilizing them in the construction of building structures. If phased construction is planned, coordinated installa- Will review later tion of the fire protection water systan is permitted. 36. Trash and debris shall be removed gran the construc- tion site as often as necessary to maintain a firesafe Will monitor construction site. ' 37. Flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored, handled, or used on the construction site in accor- dance with the applicable provisions of NFPA 20, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code; NFPA 58, Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases; and NFPA 395, Standard for the Storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids on Will monitor Farms and Isolated Construction Projects. 1 1 11 1 Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 6 Questions Non- Comply Compliance 38. At least one portable fire extinguisher having a rating of at least 4-A, 30-BC shall be within a travel distance of 75 ft (22.5 m) or less to any point of a structure under construction. Personnel normally on the construction site shall be instructed in the use of the fire extinguishers Will monitor provided. 39. All plans for planned building groups shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for approval before the issuance of the construction permit. This approval procedure shall include the Will monitor fire department having jurisdiction. 40. In addition to the requirements of 3-9.1 a small- scale drawing of the site's surrounding area showing streets, access points, water supply sources, and other items of fire suppression interest shall be submitted to the local fire department before the N/A at this time start of any construction. 41. Drawings showing building floor plans, fire pro- I tections sytems, and items of fire suppression interest shall be submitted to the fire department having jurisdiction, as requested, upon completion N/A at this time of the project. 1