8. Site Plan for 21,600 sq office bldg. 480 West 78th St. Professional Bldg •
I
C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Jan . 4 , 1989
C.C. DATE: Jan. 23 , 1989
•�,� . CNHA�SSEN
' Y CASE NO 88-17 Site
Plan
Prepared by: Hanson/v
STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for Phase I of the Chanhassen
Professional Building of 21,600 Square Feet
Z
Q
' VLOCATION: North of West 78th Street and East of 480 West
J 78th Street
Pr
I0. APPLICANT: Lotus Realty
Q P.O. Box 100 "
' Chanhassen, MN 55317 _
- gs
PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- R-12; proposed Heritage Park Apartments
IS- CBD; commercial uses
NL
E- CBD; commercial uses
W- CBD; commercial uses
ILI-1 WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available
IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is level .
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
---,30---`4.1," I ..--- • •41 mom c..
` t':,_.. ... ---- r
7-•. RSF - " I. .f.1kA
N.Anola ingillive
--? -I' c---....:_AtIls :,F* -Emms,frrtrirrli ,,r/..tp., ., -- 4...:',1;.: _
i R •••Rillr4 .sill.. '---;-1
\ i . i ‘ '11
. - - Iii, F.,_ ___ 7i:M,,,,O -'''‘'‘Aiti141 r_Zail I
R 1 -xl, , .4 -.* * gr,404
. . i 'UV 4
. . .. . 461,,,. • 4 adibld
- lei. - ii�S it r '111i -iirr.rni-
- - i OI ..r• ter. um an ck
•• • R 1 2 r ' r"
NWsit] NMI MBr71
. - `` i� EWA r.cr ...AIWA :='1:�;i::111
R 1 2 �.11 1.j �` n� ■ ,rti71 cm!
---- -- - 1111111111MWMILiallism -1:141:4 : 11111 111111' . :,
-111�' __` 11E1., ---:-#0,-3( BG •�
41
4T g *d_li - - ti la ,.._
w rjr_,_., oraTT or
9BGI / �'
• V
6*„......--- 10P _ _ . . i,Ars
\ �_ ill to.' • i'; ►�r\■ V 1,1:„_.. 41111Nrar _. .._ illtO9r10
1
- _.-_ice-;
i, LAKE SUSAN }fir,s �_
ci
i R .'-to. t,,.......... ________ 7-,-,,......,..-,_:___,....._______r__,_
R •
W pUD ��
R - e6 TH ST.
a
•
• . ; - - ..
Chanhassen Professional Building
January 4 , 1989
' Page 2
APPLICATION
The applicants are requesting site plan approval for Phase I with
3 additional phases identified on the preliminary site plan.
' Phase I will be for medical and general office uses . The intent
is for Dr. McCollum to occupy the majority of the first floor,
with occupancy to occur August 1, 1989 , when his present lease
expires . In order to accommodate this time line, we are eva-
luating a proposal that is lacking the detail we usually would
require. Further the HRA will be responsible for the site design
' work. This work will be contracted out and detailed plans will
need to be brought back to the Planning Commission.
' ANALYSIS
The review of these plans is based on an evaluation of the total
area noted on the preliminary site plan. While the applicant is
' requesting approval for Phase I , the entire project needs to work
for Phase II to make sense. The total proposal consists of four
phases totaling 38 , 400 square feet plus changes in parking and
circulation affecting the Riviera and Colonial Shopping Center .
Parking and Circulation
' The overall parking for the project is adequate, however, from
the standpoint of providing balanced parking for the project,
there is excess parking at Colonial Shopping Center and a
shortage for the Riviera. Please reference letter from Fred
Hoisington. The circulation for the Riviera as shown is intended
to provide a drop off area. The layout for this is backwards and
' eliminates what could be valuable for the Riviera. The
access drive at this location appears to be wider than needed.
Redesign of this access with head-in in parking stalls would provide
better parking for the Riviera and should reinforce the easterly
access as the main entrance for the Chanhassen Professional
Building.
The main entrance to the project is proposed to be a covered
access which ties Phase I and II together. This cover will just
be a shell and not intended for occupancy. This access is con-
tingent upon the relocation of the existing business which occu-
pies this portion of the site. If the relocation occurs prior to
Phase II completion, then this covered drive should be completed
with Phase II .
' The access as shown provides 16 foot drive lanes . There is the
potential for this area to function as a drop-off area, thus tem-
porarily blocking the drive . To accommodate this , the drives
should be widened to 20 feet or pull-offs provided to minimize
congestion at this entrance. Fire truck access will require the
I
Chanhassen Professional Building
January 4 , 1989
Page 3
covered drive to have a clearance of 14 feet. The present eleva- ,
tion appears to have only 10 feet. The Fire Inspector has also
requested that the first tier of parking north of the building
have an aisle width of 25 feet extending to Great Plains
Boulevard.
The access between the Chanhassen Professional Building and 11 Colonial Shopping Center needs to be redesigned to align the
aisles and improve traffic flow. The access behind Town Square
Center also needs to be integrated into the overall circulation
system. Access easements will be required as part of the ,
platting to provide cross access .
In evaluating the building foot print, the front setback from
West 78th Street needs to be increased to 10 feet to accommodate
side walks, landscaping and potential future widening of West
78th Street to allow for a right turn lane. This adjustment
reduces the area behind the proposed buildings , thus impacting
the parking area to the extent that parking stalls may need to be
shorter than normal . Jim Lasher has noted new standards for
parking, which may be appropriate for this project. 1
North of the clock tower, it would be desirable to provide an
open space area to reinforce this as an identity for the down-
town. In addition, this would be a logical area for the sidewalk
from Heritage Park Apartments to connect into. To make this con-
nection it is suggested that 2 or 3 parking stalls per row be
deleted to make this connection with a landscaped walkway. Loss
of the parking in this area would not be detrimental to the pro-
ject.
Building Area I
The proposed plans call for a Phase IV of 6 ,000 square feet to be
added onto the east end of the Phase I building. This addition
would be one story and is not shown in the elevation. There is a
concern that this addition will not tie into the project. We
would suggest this be reduced or Phase II be expanded. Either '
way the area should accommodate the open space and pedestrian
link discussed previously for this area.
The Building Department has noted there are several possible 1
separation problems due to existing lot lines and uses . These
will need to be resolved prior to issuance of building permits .
Building Facia
The exterior materials are to consist of block base similar to
the clock tower with cedar lap siding, cedar shake siding, pat-
terned grill work, and brick accent entrances which protrude out
from the main building. Details on this are still being develop-
ed by the architect.
•
1
i
Chanhassen Professional Building
January 4, 1989
Page 4
' Lighting
No standards have been proposed at this time. Staff would recom-
mend that low standards be used consistent with the downtown
redevelopment plan be utilized.
Signage
Details on signage have not been prepared. Staff would recommend
that a farily restrictive sign area be defined to identify offi-
ces and uses on the building rather than an identification sign
be designed to identify the complex.
' Landscaping
No plans have been provided at this time. These will be developed
as part of the site development and engineering plans for the
parking ara. These plans should be consistent with the concept
plans for the redevelopment area. Existing trees should be noted
on the plan.
' Services
No indication has been made on the plans for trash disposal, fire
hydrant, utility lines, telephone or electric boxes and vaults .
These items should be noted as they are integrated into the plan
and appropriately screened and accessible. No roof top equipment
should be visible and if any mechanical is to be located outside
the structure it should be screened. Preferrably all mechanical
should be contained within the structure.
Safety
Fire hydrants are not shown. Maximum spacing for hydrants is 300
feet. Buildings need to meet N.F.P.A. of the Uniform Fire Code.
Parking aisle nearest buildings needs to be 25 feet in width. Main
access needs to be widened to 20 feet each way with minimum height
' clearance of 14 feet.
Platting
The entire area needs to be replatted to reflect actual ownership,
establish needed easements and remove conflicts . The noted property
lines between Town Square and Riveria is incorrect as shown. As
part of this detailed topographic, utility and grading plans will
be provided.
' RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
I
I
Chanhassen Professional Building
January 4 , 1989
Page 5
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary ,
Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen Professional Building
#88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received December 12, 1988" and
subject to the following conditions : '
1 . Submittal of a revised site plan prior to City Council con-
sideration of this item which at a minimum contains the 11 following changes:
a. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street
b. Dimensions to identify location of the building and
parking areas . Parking aisle near building needs 25 foot
drive. ,
c . Revision of main entrance to provide wider drive lanes or
pull off.
d. Revised parking and access at the Riviera.
e . Adjust or eliminate Phase IV and provide park site
extending north from the clock tower and across the
parking lot to Heritage Park Apartments .
f . Revised circulation between Phase IV and Colonial r
Shopping Center.
2 . Prior to issuance of any permits for construction, detailed I
plans need to be approved by Planning Commission and City
Council for the entire area from Town Square to Great Plains
Boulevard in accordance with Section 20-107 , Application Site
Plan Review of the City Code.
3 . Submittal of revised plans shall address the following speci-
fic conditions:
a. Revised parking and circulation for Riviera.
b. Plan III should occur as part of Phase II .
c . Revise main access to accommodate traffic flow if area is
to function as a drop off. Minimun height clearance of
14 feet is to be provided.
d. Plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector. I
e. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow pro-
perly through all properties . If parking space sizes are
to be reduced from normal standard, information needs to
be submitted to justify reduced standards and address
possible impacts .
•
1
Chanhassen Professional Building
January 4 , 1989
Page 6
f. Setback of 10 foot along West 78th Street for all struc-
tural elements of buildings .
' g. Phase IV plans, elevation and use or eliminate.
h. Resolve possible separation problems with Building
Department.
i . Detailed facia plans , signage and lighting and
landscaping.
j . All mechanical to inside buildings and service boxes
' screened.
k. Submittal of revised plat for the entire area.
' 4 . The applicant shall revise the plan to show Type II erosion
control prior to the commencement of any construction.
5 . All erosion control shall be in place prior to the commence-
ment of any construction and shall remain in place until an
established vegetative cover has been established. The
developer shall be responsible for making periodic checks on
' erosion controls and making any necessary repairs promptly.
Removal shall remain the responsibility of the developer
after a vegetative cover has been established.
6 . The proposed grading plan shall be contingent upon approval
for the wetland alteration permit for the "dredging of Lake
' Minnewashta" as shown on the plan stamped "Received November ;
10 , 1988". of Region 6 Waters .
7 . Complete coordination with all public site plan improvements .
8 . Approval of the public improvement projects by the
appropriate City agencies.
9 . All easements or other requirements of the City which may be
necessary as a part of the public improvement process .
10 . All other applicable City requirements such as zoning, set-
backs, etc.
11. Concerns of Jim Lasher as noted in his letter dated December
27, 1988 .
12 . Concerns of Fred Hoisington as noted in his letter dated
December 21, 1988 .
13 . Recommendations of the Building Department as noted in the
memo dated December 21, 1988 .
Chanhassen Professional Building
January 4 , 1989
Page 7 I
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION/UPDATE
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan '
with staff' s conditions subject to the following changes:
la. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street right-of-way. '
3b. Phase III should occur as part of Phase II .
3d. Plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector . Staff
re-evaluate requirement for 14' clearance for access should
not be done unless absolutely required for safety. ,
The Planning Commission discussed this item extensively. The
confusing aspect is the applicants are requesting approval essen-
tially
for the building pads . The City will be developing the
parking areas and these plans have not been completed at this
time. The applicants are requesting approval for the building
concept and Phase I so that they can begin detailed architec- '
tural drawings . The City with BRW, Inc. and will preparing
parking lot improvements consistent with the downtown area.
These plans will be presented to Planning Commission and City
Council in February/March.
The applicant has submitted a revised plan pursuant to the
Planning Commission recommendation. The revised plan addresses
the items noted with the exception of ld and if . These will be
dealt with in the plans being prepared by BRW, Inc. The appli-
cant is still proposing a Phase IV to be added to the east end of
Phase I . The revised plans , however, do not show this addition.
Any addition would be subject to Planning Commission and City
Council approval at a future date. I
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: '
"The City Council approves of Site Plan Review #88-17 for Phase I
of the Chanhassen Professional Building based on the plan stamped
"Received January 18 , 1989" and subject to the following con-
ditions:
1 . Prior to issuance of any permits for construction, detailed ,
plans need to be approved by Planning Commission and City
Council for the entire area from Town Square to Great Plains
Boulevard in accordance with Section 20-107, Application Site
Plan Review of the City Code.
2 . Revised overall plan needs to address the following speci-
fics:
a. Revised parking to address circulation for Riviera and
Colonial Shopping Center areas . ,
I
Chanhassen Professional Building
January 4 , 1989
Page 8
b. If parking space sizes are to be reduced from normal
standards, information needs to be submitted to justify
reduced standards .
c . Plase III to occur as part of Phase II .
' d . A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street right-of-way to
be maintained for all structural elements of buildings on
all phases .
' e . If a Phase IV is to be constructed it needs to provide an
open area around the clock tower that is large enough to
maintain the clock tower as a focal point.
' f . Pedestrian access is to be provide through the parking
area from the Heritage Park Apartments , generally in line
1 with the clock tower .
g. Detailed facia plans including signage, lighting,
landscaping, and building materials need to be included
in the review of the parking lot site plan.
h . All mechanical to be inside building and any
service/utility boxes to be identified on site plan and
screened.
j, C. Revise main access to accommodate traffic flow if area is
to function as a drop off.
1' • i- • =41 .
' F. Satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector.
0. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow pro-
perly through all properties . If parking space sizes are
to be reduced from normal standard, information needs to
be submitted to justify reduced standards and address
possible impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Memo from Larry Brown dated December 29, 1988 .
2 . Letter from Gary Ehret dated December 27 , 1988 .
3 . Letter from Jim Lasher dated December 27, 1988 .
' 4 . Letter from Fred Hoisington dated December 21 , 1988 .
5 . Memo from Steve Kirchman dated December 21, 1988 .
6 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated December 15 , 1988 .
r
I
I
CITY OF II
_,
\ 1 , CHANUASSEN II
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
`" (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission I
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer II DATE: December 29 , 1988
SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Phase I , 21,600 Sq. Ft. Building,
II
Chanhassen Professional Building
#88-17 Site Plan Review, Lotus Realty Services
This site is located on the north side of West 78th Street imme- ,
diately east of 480 West 78th Street. As the Planning Commission
is aware, in August of 1987; feasibility study for the
reconstruction of West 78th Street which included the construc- ,
tion of a common public parking area for this site was approved.
The plans which were prepared by BRW and approved by the City
Council included parking lot paving, lighting, storm sewer,
II
landscaping, geometric layouts and a number of parking spaces .
As indicated in BRW' s letter dated December 27 , 1988 , from Gary
Ehret, at BRW, did not proceed with the development of final
plans and specifications due to the slower development pace then
II
contemplated. The preliminary plans for the parking lot have
been completed and coordinated with the downtown public improve-
ments but they were not finalized. I
BRW has been directed to proceed with the required process which
will presented at the City Council for their review and public II hearing prior to proceeding. This new approval will be required
for the following reasons:
1 . Public improvements are considered. I
2 . Site plan changes are significantly different then those pre-
viously contemplated. I
3 . The one year approval on the previous feasibility study has
expired.
II
4 . The land ownership has changed.
Because BRW will be proceeding with the grading plan, geometric
II
layouts , utilities , landscaping and topography, staff is
requesting that the Planning Commission limit their comments to
the architectural concerns at this time. Review of the grading
and above mentioned items will be considered at a later date.
II
Planning Commission
II December 29 , 1988
Page 2
IIIt should be noted that a minimal amount of saplings will be
removed as part of the grading process.
IRecommended Conditions
Ii . The applicant shall revise the plan to show Type II erosion
control prior to the commencement of any construction.
2 . All erosion control shall be in place prior to the commen-
II cement of any construction and shall remain in place until an
established vegetative cover has been established. The
developer shall be responsible for making periodic checks on
1 erosion controls and making any necessary repairs promptly.
Removal shall remain the responsibility of the developer
after a vegetative cover has been established.
II3 . The proposed grading plan shall be contingent upon approval
for the wetland alteration permit for the dredging of Lake
Minnewashta as shown in the plan stamped "Received November
II10, 1988" of Region 6 Waters .
II
II
II
II
I
II
I
II
I •
1
PLANNING '
TRANSPORTATION
J- ENGINEERING
• ARCHITECTURE
BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. •THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD ST SO. • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 • PH: 612/370-0700 FAX. 612/370-1378 ,
December 27, 1988
Mr. Stephen Hanson
City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Site Plan Review
Medical Arts Building
Downtown I
Dear Mr. Hanson:
We are in receipt of your request to review the site plan for the proposed 1
Medical Arts Building in the downtown area. As you are aware, the only plan
submitted at this time is the Preliminary Site Plan/Floor Plan and Elevations
sheet dated November 18, 1988, submitted to the City on December 12, 1988.
This plan obviously lacks any detail on site plan specifics, therefore, a
comprehensive review of the "missing" information is impractical . The perspective
of our review will focus on the important coordination issues rather than
on the specific details which are missing.
In August 1987, a feasibility study was completed which focused on the coordinated
construction of relevant site specific issues for a common public parking
lot on the north side of West 78th Street. This report was based upon a
development plan which is significantly different than the proposal currently
before you for consideration. Issues which were considered in the previous
feasibility study included:
o Parking Lot Paving 11 o Lighting
o Storm Sewer
o Landscaping
o Geometric Layouts
o Number of Parking Spaces
,J F C `ti 1988 II
CiTY OF CHANHASSEN I
DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W.RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS LAWRENCE J.GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN
DONALD E.HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN B.McNAMARA RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNIS J.SUTLIFF
MINNEAPOLIS ST.PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX
Mr. Stephen Hanson
December 27, 1988
Page 2
This report was accepted by the City Council of Chanhassen on August 24,
1987, and plans and specifications ordered. Because development has not
occurred as quickly as contemplated, BRW did not proceed with development
of final plans and specifications. However, preliminary plans have been
completed and coordinated with the Downtown public improvements which have
' been constructed.
Our understanding is that it is, again, the desire of the City to control
the improvement process on the north side of West 78th Street to insure a
' coordinated and controlled effort for all of the necessary public improvements.
The site plan specifics for the Medical Arts Building in all phases will
be coordinated through the public improvement process which must again take
' place.
Our understanding of the process which will be required includes a new feasibility
' study which will be presented to the City Council for their review and a
public hearing prior to proceeding. This will be required for the following
reasons:
1. Public improvements are considered.
2. Site plan changes are significantly different than those previously
contemplated.
3. The one year approval period has expired.
4. The land ownership has changed.
In order to proceed with the public improvement process, BRW has been directed
to proceed with the required documentation associated with the Medical Arts
Building. BRW, as a part of this process, will be identifying and designing
the following elements:
' 1. Grading Plan
2. Geometric Layouts
3. Parking Layouts
4. Utilities
5. Paving Plan
6. Lighting
7. Landscaping
8. Topography
9. Platting/Lot Layouts
This work will take place over the next three month period in conjunction
with the development of the Medical Arts Building plans as well as any other
proposed development in this area, so that a spring/early summer construction
schedule can be achieved.
I
I
I
Mr. Stephen Hanson
December 27, 1988
Page 3
Conclusion: ,
The site plan submittal for the Medical Arts Building should be contingent
upon the following: I
1. Complete coordination with all public site plan improvements.
2. Approval of the public improvement projects by the appropriate City
agencies. '
3. All easements or other requirements of the City which may be necessary
as a part of the public improvement process.
4. All other applicable City requirements such as zoning, setbacks,
etc.
If we can offer further information, please advise me. '
Sincerely,
BE) T-RINGROSE-WOLS - 10- : •"VIS-GARDNER, INC. I
O
. y A. „ (ret, PE I
Project o1anager
GAE/ss 1
cc: Mr. Gary Warren
1
1
• PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
` ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURE
BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD, JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD ST. SO. • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 PH: 612/370-0700 FAX. 612/370-1378
IIDecember 27, 1988
IIMr. Steven Hanson - City Planner
City of Chanhassen
II Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Steve,
1 This letter is in response to your request for review of plans for the
Professional Building in Downtown Chanhassen.
rPRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
1. Site plan does not reflect HRA action of December 1, 1988, which ordered
II placement of the building 10'-0" north of northernmost West 78th Street
right-of-way.
I 2. Parking quantities should be checked and verified by Mr. Fred Hoisington for
his recommendations.
II 3. Site plan does not address the existing sidewalk constructed under the
Downtown Redevelopment Project. Will this stay in place or be modified in
some way for this plan?
I 4. Phase 4 should be either eliminated or scaled down considerably to allow for
a major green space around the Clock Tower.
II 5. The entire building should move 10' -0" east to allow construction of
Phase I to occur without infringing on Mr. Hanson ' s property.
6. The Phase 2 building should be downsized or repositioned to allow for
Iparking along its west side for the Riviera.
7. Soils information should be reviewed for contaminants west of the Pauly
IIbuilding.
8. The Daycare Center shown should not be considered under this submittal and
IIwas not reviewed.
9. All issues relating to engineering, landscape architecture, signage and
building materials should be reviewed by staff for approval prior to any
IIpermits or approvals by Planning Commission and City Council .
10. Loading, utilities and drainage must be reviewed.
II DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS LAWRENCE J-GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN
DONALD E HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN B.McNAMARA RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF
MINNEAPOLIS ST PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX
I 1
•
Mr. Steven Hanson
December 27, 1988
Page 2 I
PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS r
1. The general building architecture appears to be of excellent design quality,
with numerous undulations in facades and roof lines which add interest and
detail . I urge the Planning Commission to review closely and make recommen-
dations which allow staff to maintain the level of detail and design
integrity which is currently shown. 1
2. Specific issues which should be addressed by staff are:
A. Building Materials '
B. Lighting
C. Window Treatments
D. Access/Egress Points
E. Signage Quantities, Placement and Sizes
PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS 1
1. Plans indicate only two access points at ground level on each side. How
will the need for additional separate entry points be addressed? I
2. Mr. Fred Hoisington should be consulted on locations for specific types of
businesses (i .e. , office, retail , medical ) in relation to current and future
parking demands. '
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding the
aforementioned issues. '
Sincerely,
BENNETT-RI f'ISE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. '
INV
Jam'- B. Lasher
JBL/sk ,
cc: Gary Ehret
File 62-8711
1
I
1
ITm
i i; _ I R, t 4-`' PLANNING
fi— � .� TRANSPORTATION
R, ENGINEERING
1 ARCHITECTURE
IBENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD ST. SO. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 • PH: 612/370-0700 FAX 612/370-1378
Z : . _ .-?.:- :r'., ,ki _,':—s i,,,E ,.•`R- •lit i2vt1 -•tt ;t MY-`X »a -'H
MEMORANDUM
. DATE: December 22, 1988
. TO: Mr. Steve Hanson - City Planner
II FROM:Y Mr. James B. Lasher - BRW..,
If RE: Meeting Minutes of 12/15/88 for Professional Building
on West 78th Street and Town Square Apartments
1
II i Professional Building
4
1 o Tom Zumwald of AEA and Jim Lasher will coordinate building placement and
I -I parking bay depths. The building is to be set 10'-0" back from existing
West 78th Street property line.
a
o BRW will be handling parking lot design
o Rich Thomasgard will provide tenant information for first floor spaces
ti
1 ; o Phase 4 is too large and should be scaled back to one-third its proposed
F
size
II ° o Signage will be reviewed closely by the City of Chanhassen prior to
approvals/permits
o Building materials must be identified for Planning Commission presentation
II '. o HUD must provide written approval of proposed parking easement
4
r
I ' o Curb. cut locations and relocations must be addressed as far as costs and
responsibility.
o Additional parking along the west side of Phase II must be provided for the
I s Riveria Restaurant use. s:
1 {
f.a DEC 2 1988
• t e ,: t
... ��:.3h 1.+iw.N. �ef;~'d �ir Ft!kay
MINNEAPOLIS ST PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX
I
1
Mr. Steve Hanson II
December 22, 1988
Page 2
o The proposed drive-thru area should provide drop-off curb indentations. II
o Soils information must be received from property west of the Pauly
building. II
Town Square Apartments
II
o Additional landscaping along the west and south property lines is to be
provided under the apartment contract.
o A concrete walking path from Chan View south to the clock tower area is to 11
be provided under the Apartment contract.
o HUD must approve all changes to drawings. '
JBL/lpm
II
cc: File 62-8711
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
• Hoisington Group Inc.
Land use Consu Cants December 21 , 1988
Mr. Steve Hanson
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Review of Chanhassen Professional Building
Dear Steve:
We have calculated the parking demand for the north side of West 78th
' Street from Laredo Drive to Great Plains Boulevard including the Clinic
addition. At full development the peak parking demand period will be
380 spaces during the noon hour. The supply will be 427 spaces including
Townsquare Center's parking (101 spaces).
This would suggest that there is a surplus of parking of 47 spaces north of
West 78th Street during the 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. period. In fact, virtually all
of that surplus will exist at the far easterly end of the-study area adjacent
to Colonial Shopping Center, While overall supply might appear to be
adequate, distribution is certainly less than ideal.
Generally speaking, Townsquare Center satisfies its own parking demand
and provides approximately 19 additional parking spaces for the Riviera.
The Riviera has a parking demand between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. of 72 spaces
which means that it will depend, to a great extent, on the Clinic's parking
to satisfy its remaining demand. Based on the plan as proposed, it is my
' opinion that the Riviera will be short-changed during its noon hour peak
demand period when the Clinic is also operating at near capacity.
' It would be my recommendation that the plan for the westerly end of the
Clinic project be reformulated to provide a better parking arrangement for
the Riviera including parking spaces closer to its front door. That could be
accomplished by reducing the size of Phase 2 slightly to both reduce the
demand for and increase the supply of parking adjacent to the Riviera.
We understand that the Riviera owner has opted for a covered drop-off
area in lieu of immediately proximate parking. I am sure that the pattern
' established by the proposed drop-off area will not be conducive to a
' 7300 metro Blvd
Suite 525
Edina,MN 55435
(b 11)835-9960
smooth flow of traffic from West 78th Street into the parking area because ,
the drop-off area is on the srong side of the driveway. Without a doubt,
my primary concern is not with overall parking supply and demand but
with distribution.. Will parking as proposed be capable of supporting the
Riviera clientel? I believe it will not and that the City should maintain a
degree of flexibility with Phase 2 of the Clinic to ensure that the Riviera 1
will not have a parking space deficiency.
I am also extremely concerned about the easterly expansion of the Clinic ,
identified as Phase 4. My parking calculations are based on a 3,000 square
foot future addition but I have always been of the opinion that the open
space associated with the Clock Tower should be expanded to provide for a
small vestpocket type park in this location. The Phase 4 addition would
not only destroy this opportunity but would block a potential pedestrian ,
linkage between Chan View and the Clock Tower/Urban Park.
The Day Care Center is also of some concern though we have computed '
parking demand to include the originally proposed 6,000+ square foot
facility. It appears that this facility is about one-half the original size and
provides for no outdoor play area. It has been rendered a non-entity and
should probably not be included in the parking computations.
I recommend as follows:
I. More parking should be provided to serve the Riviera. ,
2. The Riviera drop-off area should be reevaluated.
3. The easterly expansion of the Clinic (Phase 4) should not be allowed.
If you have further questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Fre Hoisington
Consultant
1
PARKING ACCUMULATION
NORTH SIDE WEST 78TH STREET
ADJUSTED TIME OF DAY
USE DEMAND 8-11 11-2 2-4 4-6 6-9
TOWNSQUARE
I •RETAIL 59
32 67% 40 90% 53 85% 50 100% 59 90% 53
•RESTAURANT 0% 0 90% 29 50% 16 90% 29 100% 32
RIVIERA 80 25% 20 90% 72 30% 24 90% 72 100% 80
COLONIAL CENTER 59 67% 40 90% 53 85% 50 100% 59 90% 53
CLINIC
•MED OFFICE 128 100% 128 90% 115 100% 128 50% 64 10% 13
•GEN OFFICE 52 98% 51 93% 48 91% 47 50% 26 10% 5
DAY CARE 19 100% 19 50% 10 50% 10 100% 19 10% 2
r
TOTALS 429 298 380 325 328 238
SUPPLY = 427 Parking Spaces
' Overall, the Project will have approximately a 47 car surplus during the peak
hour on the 90th percentile day and a 189 car surplus during the period 6-9 p.m.
HOISINGTON GROUP INC.
' 12-20-88
I
r
I
• 1
1
PEAK PARKING DEMAND
NORTH SIDE WEST 78TH STREET 1
PEAK PEAK MULTI- ADJUSTED
USE SIZE. RATIO DEMAND PURPOSE DEMAND
TOWNSQUARE
•RETAIL 15,500 4/1,000 62 5% 3.8/1,000 59
'RESTAURANT 86s 1/2.5s 34 5% 1/2.6s 32
RIVIERA - 169s 1/2 s 84 5% 1/2.1s 80 1
COLONIAL CENTER 12,500 5/1,000 62 5% 4.75/1,000 59 1
CLINIC
•MED OFFICE 19,200 1/1 5 0 128 0% 1/150 128
•GEN OFFICE 16,200 3.2/1,000 52 0% 3.2/1,000 52
DAYCARE 101 chid 1/10 chid 19 0% - 19
9 empl 1/empl
TOTALS 441 429 111
1
HOISINGTON GROUP INC.
12-20-88 1
1
1
1
1
1
I y
1 ::„
CITY OF
, , ,--A . -
-\, , P
ill ,L, ,,,..
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Steve Hanson, City Planner
1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector t�1,
DATE: December 21, 1988
ISUBJ: Planning Case #88-17 Site Plan Review
11 1 . Building must be sprinklered.
II 2 . One handicapped parking stall must be provided for every
fifty parking stalls .
II 3 . If the building labeled "Paulys" is an existing building,
the east property line may not be moved so as to cause
the building to violate required setbacks .
11 4 . An access easement should be provided for the property
to the north of the Riviera, otherwise the property will
be unbuildable.
1 -
II
II
II
II
I
II
1
CITY OF
•
\4 ‘ CHANHASSEN
r
- r
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM r
TO: Stephen Hanson, City Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
DATE: December 15 , 1988 r
SUBJ: Case #88-17 Site Plan Review
Recommendation at this time:
r
1 . Buildings must be built in accordance with the Minnesota r
State Fire Code, NFPA requirements .
Further detailed requirements will be forthcoming as planning
progresses .
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
11
•
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I (612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: (2,71.4S Rkuric..pvicgc OWNER: ::41-1T\GP-574/12
III ADDRESS •O. ioK /0 O ADDRESS
WAS SF2N) , V I N. 55 1 7
I Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 93 _L-f53 $ TELEPHONE
REQUEST:
IZoning District Change Planned Unit Development
I Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
\/ Street/Easement Vacation
I J\ Site Plan Review
/� Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME 644,..114pss6 �/�GD f(At ARTS uie-P rJ c
IPRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION _a -C
tM�-P
IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION �q/\..iF
PRESENT ZONING �R D
IREQUESTED ZONING Sq r
21 (e00 50-4--( t"- -7 of G4-InJic occuPA )-)oivkC I- -cDf 44A.
USES PROPOSED = ._ , ��.� e r) o SDO 'cam -- 0—
I PPof9a551oNfl2- SG wi cE- Sp. !ti i.-4ASE 2 .
SIZE OF PROPERTY 4_It • _ , - ‘ikr.L 00 •0 _1c.* - - -JCL 1 AJ '/tki
' LOCATION tc'r- 7yi._ - --1- _ s & i01iu• di - - v L'= o P.. vFz
A? . -1.PoN S Dt-v'O.
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
I
ILEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
I
City of Chanhassen
I/
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS : I
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and _
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION: I
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
14011
Signed By I: , "r(,
Date 17.11 t t
(
A . icant
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described . •
11
Signed By Date
Fee Owner
I
Date Application Received 1102-0-4F ,
Application Fee Paid e l5®
City Receipt No. J5/2F
1
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
I
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
IIJanuary 4, 1989 - Page 49
Idowntown throughout this site.
i
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IISITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 21, 600 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON
BUILDING, PROPERTY
ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST
I 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING-PHASE I , ARVID ELNESS
ARCHITECTS, INC.
ISteve Hanson presented the staff report.
Brown: Point of clarification. There was a clerical error on the tail
end of my memorandum. What appears to be page 2 is an arbitrary page.
III 'm not sure where it came from. My memorandum ends at page 1.
Conrad : Brad , do you have any reaction that you want to talk about here?
IBrad Johnson: I think Tom's prepared to answer anything on this site.
I 'd like to point out that we ' ve been having meetings with the City and
we've collected some comments that in general are pretty much being
II addressed and I think that has to be clarified . I want you to remember
too that this is a four phase project. One phase is very important to get
going and that ' s the first phase . The next three would deal with an
II extension and that overhang and the possible expansion east. . . We have a
concept here that we 'd like you to have you accept for all four phases .
Tom will be go through and bring you up to speed on what we' re asking for .
ITom Zumwalde : This is an original drawing that you would always see. It
is . . .speci.fic information. Part of the reason for that is because it
covers about 20 parcels of property here and we have very limited
I __ information in terms of who owned them. How big they were and a number of
other things . Also , part of the problem was that the City and the City' s
consultant was going to be doing a municipal parking lot so our biggest
I concern initially was to try and find what the extent of our work would be
in order to put this building together and how much would be done by the
:e City and by BRW. We had a meeting , I believe in December with Steve and
I Jim Lasher of BRW. Before that meeting I prepared a site drawing on a
little larger scale so we could see what we' re talking about . I started
to focus in on the two buildings. This is 78th Street down here. Phase
1, the two story building . Phase II , a one story building . . .and then the
I proposed Phase IV over here. This being the clock tower and this is
Heritage Park Apartments . On this drawing I had arbitrarily laid out
parking. Again taking it a step further than perhaps I should have but I
I wanted to feel reasonably comfortable myself that the building and
parking . . . and so forth. In our discussion that day, the way it ended up
was that basically what we are looking at is the building and the building
pad and that BRW would prepare all the documents for the parking lot, for
I the sidewalks surrounding the building , the landscape plan , the grading
plan and the utilities. They would also be getting the surveys and so
forth . Everything else that was required . Out of that meeting that day,
II one of the things we talked about is, as Steve had mentioned, is pushing
the building back farther from 78th Street and also shifting it over to
the east a little bit so that if the Lawn and Garden Center stays longer
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 50 11
than , construction of Phase I could begin before the Lawn and Garden
Center is decided. . . What I did was again, taking a look at that site and
prepared an updated one which I unfortunately didn' t get done in time to
get out to everyone but I did give Steve a copy today. On there, again it II
reflects our meeting and the comments from that meeting. I shifted the
building back from the property line such that the protrusions that you
saw. . . The extensions on the front of the building are 10 feet from the
front property line and I shifted the building to the east 10 feet such
that the Sports and Lawn Center, whatever. Hanson's property, would be
left intact and there wouldn' t be any problem crossing the property line II there in the construction of Phase I . I then just laid out the parking . . .
I suggested on here some landscape. Again , wherever one of the extensions
of the building occurs , typically here, here, here and here, that
eliminates the parking spaces . A little better on here. It made no
mention of -tree species or bushes or anything else. That' s something that II
BRW will be preparing and we' ll be working with them on it. I had gotten
a report today with staff comments and I guess I would question a couple
of them. One is Phase IV. After the building suggests , you can see on
here that I think the buildings as they' re laid out on here, start to move
away a little bit from the clock tower and leave the mini-park area there
that we had talked about I believe in December. One of the problems with
not including the Phase IV is that Dr. McCollum' s clinic is going to be on
the first floor of this building in this area. One of his requirements is
that initially he talked about a 6, 000 square foot expansion. He ' s
looking at about a 3,000 square foot expansion now. If we are hemmed in
here or can ' t do anything , it' s going to create a problem for him. The
other part of the building on this side would be the Waconia Hospital so
the entire floor , first floor would be those two tenants . When and if
Pauly' s is no longer there and that property is picked up, if there were
3,000 square foot expansion from the Phase IV to the building , it could be
done in such a way that it would occur back in this area and I think 'still II
maintain that community park around the clock tower so that building
wouldn' t be encroaching . . . I know if we cut up the access, with direct
access to the clock tower in this direction but when you look at it,
visually it 's nice. You ' ll be able to see the clock tower from walking
down this path but realistically, you' re directing pedestrians to this
point. This is perhaps the worse area of town to try and cross the
street. So if you directed traffic to this point and then over this lot , II
the impact of crossing 78th Street . . . I guess what I 'm saying there is ,
we' re going to need a Phase IV, a provision for a potential Phase IV of
about 2,000 square feet. The other thing that concerns me a little bit is
the fire department comment on being able to get a truck through here. If
we look at 14 feet of clear in there, it throws it really out of scale I
think with the rest of the building . We' ll get into that a little more .
I put together some color elevations of the three phases. We' ll start
with Phase I . What we' re looking at picking up on the building is again a
combination of the wood lap siding, the cedar shakes and some brick. Part
of the problem with our firm doing several buildings on top of each other
is trying to keep each one individualized. It ' s tough. It' s kind of like
a balancing act . I think we' ve achieved a little different look with
this . . . I mentioned a combination of materials . These are projections on
the building . They would be brick masonary and we pick up some grill work
in some of these areas. You' re looking at a small . . .type window to break
I/
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 51
Iup the large glass surfaces and the potential perhaps for signage on these
lighter colored bands. Now this building would have a limited number of
tenants so signage would be fairly minimal . On the Phase I building,
we' re looking at a one story building very similar in character, the same
materials but perhaps a greater number of tenants . Some dentists .
Perhaps some attorneys. Doctor offices. Things like that with individual
entrances so we give each one an opportunity to have his own signage above
the door. Third phase, the connecting lane, would be again the same
material . It ' s basically brick but relatively open on the inside and
perhaps. . .construction something like that. This is intended to be a
metal grillwork that will pick up the same character as the grillwork over
here. Also the grillwork over in this area and along the railings and so
forth . If we go to 14 feet in there , basically we would be eliminating
that and creating a very large and very awkward type of opening. Part of
the problem when it gets that large is that everyone can get through
there. You' ve got the potential for a semis and other things to try and
get through there. I think it would keep it down on a smaller scale. . .on
the overall proportions of the building . Secondly it will avoid the
problem of people trying to get through there that weren' t intended to go
through there. As far as the safety is concerned , the Fire Department is
over here. I suppose somehow or another they probably could get through
there . I guess my feeling is that it' s probably okay in height . . . When
you put all three phases together, you end up with about a 448 feet of
building in Phase III here which is a one story. . .and two story over here
as Phase I . I guess what we ' re asking for tonight is approval so that we
can proceed with construction drawings for Phase I . Dr . McCollum' s lease
runs out and there is some time pressures to kind of move it along .
Brad Johnson : I 'd like to just comment on a couple of things that are
important to us. One is the timing of the project. I 'm sorry you read
' that book before . If we don' t accomplish our timeline which we are
happily on, there will be no medical clinic in the community because his
lease is done in August and his building will be at that time leased to
somebody else. That' s just a problem we' re facing. We did not know that
until November of this last year . First of all we had to go through the
HRA and get them to approve this , which we did in November. Secondly, we
' do need expansion space to the east to live up to what is required by the
clinic in their lease for some expansion space on the first floor that
they can grow with . I think again , some of these issues as far as the
parking and everything are either in the City' s area right now and/or
would come back into our control through a redevelopment agreement . For
example, if the City doesn' t do the parking lot, than we have to have the
right to do that . That would come through a right that we would have with
' the HRA right now. The HRA has a redevelopment agreement. They are
agreeing to deliver us a site to build on. Actually own the whole site
and when the parking lot comes, we ' ll sell them that park. Should they
not fund the parking lot by the time the building is open , than we' ll have
' to build the parking lot to those standards ourselves so it ' s kind of
catch 22. That ' s up to the City Council to make a decision whether or not
they want to have a parking lot or not . They have passed in the past , is
' that not correct Larry?
Brown : That ' s correct .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 52 1
II
Brad Johnson: I think in the past it was approved but because they did
not build it within a year , will have to fund it and that' s kind of a
sticky with us because we have a really tremendous time pressure on this
particular project. Or at least on that one portion of the building. As
Tom said , we' re looking for concept approval of the building so we can
start construction drawings . That ' s the most important thing. I don' t
think the final site plan is as important as the construction drawings and
the process that we have to go through. Thank you.
Erhart : In the first place, there ' s a lot of stuff here that we normally il
see such as the landscaping. When are we going to see that?
Brown: If I can address that question. As you may have read in Gary
Ehret' s report from BRW, because we' ve overlapped the year deadline, we' re
going to have to go through the entire process once again . Public
hearing. Feasibility study in getting these plans approved so you will
II
have the comment period , if you will , to address the landscaping and
grading and everything . It' s a unique situation in that because this area
was designated to fall within the parameters that we established with the
downtown redevelopment district, the City at this time felt that the only II
way to control that was to do this as a public works improvement project .
Unfortunately, once again, we' re facing a big time crunch. I think the
developer has . . .trying to work with the site plan while we work out the
other details. II
Erhart: So we will see it at some point in time? Like a month or so
we' ll see a landscaping plan?
II
Brown: You will see the plans as the biggest constraints were the
topography constraints basically and those that break out with the II preliminary plans for the parking lot . I wouldn' t expect that that would
change much given the other constraints that are on it.
Erhart: Going onto the . . . I had number 1 here on the conditions . The 10 II
foot setback. How is that going to provide a right turn lane?
Hanson: The 10 foot setback is not going to provide the right turn lane. II
The right-of-way is where that right turn lane will exists . But without
the additional 10 feet . . .
Erhart : The right-of-way on what? The street itself? 1
Hanson: The right-of-way line is right here. The area that' s highlighted II
in yellow, to build the right turn lanes , that area is lost , if you will ,
for landscaping .
Erhart : Yes . Okay, so that ' s where it would go? I
Hanson: It would go here and the 10 feet what that allows you is an
adequate distance to maintain landscape improvements to be installed along
here.
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 53
Erhart : Is the are drawn in yellow so that if we decide to pull those
out, the median and make it a 4 lane street, that ' s what the yellow is?
Hanson: I don ' t know.
Erhart : In a serious sense . Is there adequate space there? If the City
' 50 years down the road decided that it didn ' t want a median anymore and
they wanted the new main street to be 4 lane , is there adequate spacing
for that with this building?
Tom Zumwalde : We got the dimensions here that they got from BRW. Up in
the centerline of the right-of-way, the curb line now is 21 feet. This
curb line. Its a 16 foot right-of-way. So if you took the center island
' out it would be. . .and if you were going to show a 12 or 14 foot drive
lane, that would be 26 feet.
Hanson : Move the curb north 5 feet , take out the center median and you'd
have 4 lanes. Four lanes with no left turn lanes and no right turn lanes .
Erhart : I understand that and that' s within the area that ' s yellow?
' All I 'm suggesting is that we preserve that option. I 'm not suggesting
that they. . .but reserve that option so if some future city government ,
we' ll be all long and gone, if they want to be able to use the space. . .
1 Hanson : I would say you' ve got adequate right-of-way to do that. What
the 10 feet does is allow that sidewalk to not be within the right-of-way.
That ' s on private property. Also, the 10 foot was a requirement of HRA
when they reviewed the plans too.
Erhart : You' re comfortable that we' re okay there? We are going to get
then to see the revised parking lot for the Riveria sometime? One of my
comments even before , Tom you may want to respond there , I don ' t quite see
why, given what the requirements to have a 14 foot drive thru there would
do to the architectural design of the building , I don' t understand why we
need to do that. The Fire Department can come in from the east. They can
come in from the west . It looks like they can also may or may not be able
to come through the alley behind Town Square Center and maybe even through
the apartments . It just seems to me there ' s plenty of access there. In
looking at the view of the building and changing that to a 14 foot
requirement , really will add some. . .what he building will look like when
' you' re standing on the street level . I guess I just don' t think. . . What
do you mean resolve possible separation problems with the Building
Department? I didn' t quite understand that.
Hanson : I 'm trying to remember what the separation problems were . One of
them I know is located around Pauly' s as far as separation here and the
gas station obviously there needs to be separation. . . My understanding
' is that once we get final plat for the project , then that will be
resolved .
' Erhart : Pauly' s, that ' s a gas station now?
Brown: It' s starting to click here. There' s requirements in the building
1
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 54 ,
code that state , it had to do with the old store front situation that you II
saw. That if they were right up against the lot line, then you needed to
build a parapet wall such that if one structure caught on fire, there was
a barrier there. Now if we go through and replat the area and the lot
line is no longer there and it' s no longer a problem. Easy way to get
around that.
Erhart : Lastly, I generally agree that you ought to combine Phase II I
with Phase III . There' s no reason not to do that. I also, somehow, I 'm
not sure if Phase IV fits . Why can' t the good doctor occupy with only
Phase II? Use that 6, 000 square feet over in Phase II area? That' s
really not, that' s still up in the air?
Tom Zumwalde: The additional space, that would involve having, a lot of
that building . . .
Erhart : You would be opposed to splitting that up? Well , I won' t say
anything more about Phase IV at this time.
Emmings : What ' s Waconia Hospital going to do there as a tenant?
Brad Johnson: They' re going to provide physical therapy, sports medicine
and primarily occupational health for the local businesses . The emergency
clinic, if there is one, there will be an emergency clinic which we
perceive will be near the hospital . . . So they won' t have an emergency
clinic. It won' t be a 24 hour but 16 to 12 hours .
Emmings: You ' ve just got to be careful when you have your emergency. '
Brad Johnson: I think you ' ll hear mostly it' s kids here. That' s what
they' re doing . Through their support and with Dr . McCollum and ourselves ,
this whole thing- is happening. We will get into the signage issues ,
special . . .signs . Good identification so we' re going to come back on
signage. We want to conform to the downtown sign standards and it has
certain standards that already are here . It ' s a professional area .
You' ll see a transfer of your signage requirements of professional now are
starting to look like. . . We haven' t gotten to the signs yet so that ' s why
we haven' t addressed it but we are going to have to identify our tenants .
It' s a choice of being on the first floor of Phase II , as tenants , with a
sign on the main street and second floor of the current first building and
give them a bite out of the square foot if they don ' t choose the first
floor. They have a real big change now with how people perceive where a
professional should be. . . .have to deal with it every day. . . Signs are
important. Right doctor? And these things are all in our lease .
Emmings: This is another one of these plans that we' ve been bombarded
with tonight that are real half baked and that' s no cut. I 'm not being
disrespectful . It ' s an important addition to the city and I think it' s
great to have that building right there downtown. I think it ' s a nice
looking building . I like everything about it. I just don' t know much
about it. It ' s real hard to look at this but I think that I could very
easily be persuaded to table this until we know actually what it' s going
to be. On the other hand, I think it' s so important that, and I 'm taking
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 55
my coaching from Dave too . Not to rush into these rush situations but
this does seem to be one . I think it ' s such an important addition to the
City that I could just as easily be persuaded to put it through if
I thought , if I could be assured that we' re going to have a chance to look
at these other items that we normally see at this time, at least in the
near future. My other comments were pretty much like Tim' s . I do
1 strongly agree that these three should be made to occur with Phase II . If
Phase IV is important , there must be a way to work it out . Even if it ' s
offset to the north a little bit to give a little more room around the
clock tower . It would seem to me there would be a way to do that but I
' sure wouldn' t want, right now it ' s just a ghostly little thing down there
on paper and I wouldn ' t be very eager to do anything that would indicate
that we' re approving that. Now the buildings are moved back a little bit ,
' is that going to , do you think that ' s going to screw up the parking plan
back there in any way?
1 Hanson: That ' s part of the standards. Essentially the way it was laid
out. . . I believe it was about a 3 foot setback on the front side. On the
back side of the parking lot , we had enough room to do the parking . . .
What we' re having to do through that parking area and through some of the
sidewalk and landscape areas , is essentially pick up 7 feet .
Emmings : But then, do we have standards for these parking lots in our
ordinance now or do they come from something else?
Hanson: The ordinance now, it refers to another standard. I think it ' s
something out of a traffic manual .
Emmings : And are we going with that standard or have we g one out and
found a different standard because we need one there?
' Hanson: What we. talked about was a need to reduce some of the,
essentially deal with the situation we have with the amount of space
that ' s there. When Tom and Jim Lasher and myself met , Jim said, there
had been some recent standards and I have not seen the standards yet and
I 'm not sure who put them out? I don ' t know if it came from landscape
architecture or if it came from transportation in here. So I haven' t
been able to verify what those standards are but they felt they could pick
up space if they needed to to preserve that 10 foot setback on the front
side through the parking . I don ' t know how short those spaces are . I
don' t know if he' s talking 18 foot depth , 24 or 22 foot drive or what that
standard is . He had mentioned that the overall width would go down to at
least 58 feet. In all honesty, I don' t know how you can get it down to 58
feet and make it work.
Emmings : I think that ' s a big item. We sure don ' t want to build any kind
of substandard parking lot if it' s going to, I feel like it allows it now
' and if it' s less than what I 'm parking in now, it ' s going to be awful . As
far as the need for the fire department to get under Phase III , we' ve got
a Public Safety Commission right? I think those people ought to have some
' input into this. It would seem to me to make sense that you could get in
from one end or the other but I think we ought to , somebody ought to ask
them what they think is necessary. I think they like to get everywhere
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 56 I
all the time but other than that , I don' t have anything . 1
Ellson: I don' t want to look at it until I get a lot more. I think our
City is pretty good about working with people and pushing things through
but this is just way too much out. I think you ' re asking us to do a lot
without anything here . One of the things I like is to look at all the
things. I like to see the landscaping thing over here and how to make a II decision tonight. If I know in November , I can certainly sympathize with
you but I would rather see you working 24 hours a day to give me more
information. I don' t care about that side of it but I don' t think it' s
fair to us or fair to the planner , fair to Steve to have to write up every I
single exception that' s missing and try to cover his bases and ask for us
to approve it that. way. I 'd want to see it tabled until we get a lot
more. ,
Brad Johnson: Can I answer that question? That is not our problem. It ' s
the City' s problem. We would have it all done but we have to live within
the City' s process and the process is you have to have a public hearing .
It 's about a 3 month thing. It' s going to come back to you. You' re going
to see everything . It' s going to be like what they did before which was
already approved and had gone through the City. This whole parking lot
was approved once before. There shouldn ' t be no real major changes . It ' s
just not within our control . That' s what we realized about a month ago .
It' s not within our control to propose anything there. We' re building on
a pad which the City is going to provide. Now we can ' t go out and design
something and then have it redesigned by the City. I would prefer to try
to figure out a solution to that problem because you have the controls .
First of all your own city staff is designing it and we' ll probably meet
all the standards that you've set. I think if that is a major issue ,
we' ll just have to back off and not do the deal and you' re going to lose
this project. That' s it. We can not miss, I 'm not trying to force ° II anything through- but what we' re saying is , we' ve got two months . We need
to get our working drawings going. Okay. Site plan can wait a month or
two but we can not proceed and invest $60, 000. 00 in the building . The
timeframe, a site plan can be done from an architect' s point of view,
pretty quickly. It ' s the process that we have to live with in the City.
We need, that' s what I said in the beginning, an approval of the building
so that we can proceed with what is the longest part of this whole thing
and that ' s the plans and specifications of the building. We can come
back, we' ll be back before the City is going to be coming back with the
site plan. I don' t know when. I ' ve got a meeting with them on Friday. I '
know they've been busily working on the whole thing to try and get it done
but that' s our problem. I hope you guys can address the problem because
we ' ve got , I think quite a bit here . As much as we always have relative
to the building. And we are building on a pad. It' s not our parcel .
Batzli : Being somewhat at a loss as to how to respond to that last
comment, I ' ll read the comments I had previous to it. Regarding Phase
III , I guess if the fire department actually needs it and it doesn' t fit
in aesthetically, I 'd say get rid of the whole thing rather than having it
be an eyesore . I might myself have reservations about the rush nature of
this, etc . . Notwithstanding what you just said, I would like to see us
provide, and we are going to get a chance to review the entire thing down
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 57
' the road , I would like to see us have a medical center . Medical clinic in
town so I guess with the provisions that we have and the conditions , I 'd
like to see us move on tonight .
' Wildermuth : Agree.
Headla : I don ' t go along with the time constraint . I bet they haven ' t
even tried to negotiate a 90 day extension. This is a tremendous clout
that they' ve got with these threats . Oh , I figured out . If they would
line the fire truck up in the Dinner Theater parking lot, I bet they could
get it right through that pass . Go over that center piece . I think
that ' s got to get resolved. What I was thinking on this is, I don' t want
to see it go to a motion that we approve anything but I think it ought to
' be considered as information only. We certainly can put in our comments
and let it get to the Council and let them comment on it. They' ve got to
get the job done. At least they would know which way the wind is blowing
' on it . From what I see , yes , I think it ' s a good start. But if we
approve it, what would we approve? There ' s 18 conditions here that they
want. Basic conditions so I 'd suggest we make the vote on it as
information only and we like what we see so far .
Conrad : My thoughts . Under 1 (e) . That seems to be an interesting point .
Phase IV. Steve, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to create a
' park at that point? What are we trying to do?
Hanson: I guess what I would label it as a pocket park. It ' s not an
area , an active park. I think what you ' re trying to do is , you ' ve got the
clock tower out there and you want to allow enough open space out there to
reinforce that element that you put there and not have it lost against the
front side of a building. I think you ' ve taken the step of saying , this
is an identity for the downtown area and what we ' re suggesting is we need
to reinforce that element that you put up there and not have it get lost
in the other things. I think that can be accomplished in several
' different ways . What I 'm saying right now, I have no idea if it ' s going
to become lost or not . What they submitted is , they want to do an
extension that way and as an extension of the existing building coming out
with the same kind of footprint, I don' t think it' s going to work if we
' really want to maintain that as an identity. It ' s not to say that some
extension couldn ' t work but I don ' t think we have enough detail to say, to
put our blessing on it at this point in time. The other thing I mentioned
' is , what we' re looking at is an approval for just the first phase at this
point in time.
Conrad : In terms of the 14 foot clearance , I guess I don ' t know how to
' react to that one. We' re being told by the fire department that they want
it . Whether it' s essential or not .
' Brown : If I could comment on that . I guess everyone has seen comments
come through here from the fire department. They look at it and you say,
is this a valid comment or isn ' t it? Hopefully, all of them are valid and
withstand any sort of criteria that we can put up against them. I offer
this as a suggestion. Between the time, if you decide to have us go to
City Council , bring this back to the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief and take
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 58
II
a look at this and have them either reinforce it or deny it . I guess I
II
myself would be at a loss , looking at this . I don' t fight fires and I
don ' t know, I don' t have any standard from my profession to base that on.
Conrad: I guess I need to know if it' s critical or not. Based on what II
Tim is saying , it looks like they can get to the whole building from
almost anyplace so to have a shortcut through, I don ' t know that, I 'm not 11
sure that the shortcut is necessary. Yet if they say it ' s critical , then
I think we have to pay attention.
Emmings : I just wondered , is the median , if the fire truck is going east , II
are they going to be able to turn in there anyway? They can' t turn in
there anyhow and that ' s where they' re going to be coming from.
Brown: The other reservation I have is, why go under a burning structure. 11
Conrad : Okay, moving along . Those are my comments . Phase IV seems kind
of nebulous. Brad, I 'm not sure, I know Dr. McCollum needs additional
space or may need it. I think it' s probably important for you and I don' t
know how contractually you' ve tied into that but on the other hand, it
doesn ' t look like it' s been solved at this point in time.
II
Brad Johnson: In your ordinance, on that particular project, we can build
right up to the line . According to the ordinance so we would build
anytime in the CBD area, . there' s no setback so you' ll have to buy that II
property. The City doesn ' t own that nor do they own Pauly' s so you' ve got
a budgetary thing that the HRA hasn ' t spent. You ' re talking $100, 000. 00
to $130, 000. 00 for a park. I 'm just saying , it' s an issue that first of
II
all the HRA has to agree to purchase the property.
Conrad : I don ' t have a problem reacting to the Phase I right now. I
Brad Johnson: We just looked at the ordinances and said well , we can
build right up to there. Don said don' t build over Pauly' s so we pulled
it back. Then we had a problem with space. We have a lot of requirements II
from the clinic as to what we can do. . . so we felt it was within the
ordinance that we were living up to that. We had not thought about what
Steve mentioned . . .but that is Phase IV. It ' s an issue that , it may not
I
get done today.
Conrad : But it' s there and Mr . McCollum needs to know that there ' s
II
expansion, right?
Brad Johnson : Yes . Well , there' s still this meeting that has to happen
with you guys and that ' s the meeting with BRW to finalize some of these
II
questions they raised . All of these questions about the site plan. One
of them will be, how this is all worked out and I think that' s what we' re ,
we' re going to one side . We have to have 3 , 000 square feet . We' re II restricted in this particular project, it' s been delayed a year so far in
getting going . The problem simply is Bernie Hanson . Otherwise we
wouldn' t have any of these kinds of problems . We wouldn' t have this
big . . .and all those kinds of things so we ' ve reached the point now. Dave II
can speak to that, we tried to extend his lease. He can' t. That' s the
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 59
' problem.
Conrad : And I wasn ' t even addressing that . I 'm addressing Phase IV which
seems to be a little bit of a problem as I look at it right now.
Brad Johnson : yes , and we don ' t have a solution . It ' s all part of that
site plan.
Conrad : But I think we have to come up with a solution real quickly for a
lot of different reasons. But anyway, those were my only two comments on
the 14 foot height and I think we need further clarification from the fire
chief on that issue. Then just a comment on the Phase IV. I agree with
combining Phase II. and III . I think that ' s probably something we should
' do and most of the other comments. I also think we should push this
through. I think we need a fine medical clinic and I think we need the
hospital coming into town. You' ve seen the Commission react to a lot of
' problems similar to this tonight so this is just right in line with the
other things that we 've seen.
Brad Johnson : My question is, is there someway to do this that would
assure that we come back with the things . . .
Conrad : I think you are. I 'm pretty comfortable that you ' re coming back.
Brad Johnson: We have no choice. We will be back.
Ellson : And boy you better be ready if you do .
Emmings : And you want to too don ' t you?
' Conrad : Is there a motion?
Headla : Let me try my idea on for size if there ' s anybody who agrees?
' I make the motion we approve this as information only and we viewed it
favorably.
Conrad : Is there a second? The motion dies for lack of second .
Erhart: I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen
t Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received
December 12, 1988" with the provisions 1, 2 , 3 and 4 as listed in the
staff' s recommendations. I 'd also like to change item 3 (d) . I would
like to leave, plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and add ,
that staff would again review the requirements for bringing through
Phase II overhead entrance. And to emphasize that the Planning
Commission feels that it shouldn ' t be done unless it was absolutely
required for safety purposes . Were there any other changes?
Batzli : Do you want to right-of-way to 1 (a) ? You ' re talking about the
right-of-way.
Hanson : No , we' re talking about the setback in the existing right-of-way.
r
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 60 1
Batzli : Correct . We want to add that we ' re talking about West 78th
Street right-of-way.
Conrad : Is there a second?
Batzli : Second.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen
Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received December
12, 1988" with the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a revised site plan prior to City council consideration
of this item which at a minimum contains the following changes :
a. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street right-of-way. ,
b. Dimensions to identify location of the building and parking areas .
Parking aisle near building needs 25 foot drive. I
c . Revision of main entrance to provide wider drive lanes or pull
off. 1
d . Revised parking and access at the Riviera .
e. Adjust or eliminate Phase IV and provide park site extending north II
from the clock tower and across the parking lot to Heritage Park
Apartments.
f. Revised -circulation between Phase IV and Colonial Shopping Center . 1
2. Prior to issuance of any permits for construction, detailed plans need
to be approved by Planning Commission and City Council for the entire
area from Town Square to Great Plains Bouelvard in accordance with
Section 20-107 , Application Site Plan Review of the City Code.
3. Submittal of revised plans shall address the following specific
conditions :
a . Revised parking and circulation for Riviera . '
b. Plan III should occur as part of Phase II .
c. Revise main access to accommodate traffic flow if area is to
function as a drop off. Minimum height clearance of 14 feet is to
be provided . I
d. Plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and that staff will
again review the requirements for the Phase II overhead entrance.
The Planning Commission feels that it shouldn ' t be raised to 14
feet unless it is absolutely required for safety purposes .
r
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 61
e. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned g ed to flow properly
through all properties . If parking space sizes are to be reduced
t from normal standard , information needs to be submitted to justify
reduced standards and address possible impacts .
f. Setback of 10 foot along West 78th Street for all strcutural
elements of buildings .
g. Phase IV plans , elevation and use or eliminate.
h. Resolve possible separation problems with Buildin g Department.
artment.
' i . Detailed facia plans , signage and lighting and landscaping.
j . All mechanical to inside buildings and service boxes screened.
' k. Submittal of revised plat for the entire area .
4. Compliance with comments of the attached referral letters .
' All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Headla : Lack of adequate information .
WOODCREST NEIGHBORHOOD - DISCUSSION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS .
Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item.
Bill Eggert: Thank you for everybody being here at 12 : 30 tonight .
' Larry' s been very helpful on this project in bringing it to the attention
of the Planning Commission. I just want to state a couple of things
before I give you some of the details here. I know several of you viewed
the site personally before it even came to the Planning Commission. There
was an interest , Annette , you ' re a resident in the area so you have a
personal interest in it. David you were out and looking primarily at the
wildlife and had concerns about the water control and that type of thing
' and you exhibited a genuine concern about our interests in the area and
the interest of the City of Chanhassen . Unfortunately, things didn' t go
according to plan. We felt it was necessary to bring it to your
attention. Perhaps at this point in time anything to be done might be a
moot topic. There' s probably nothing that can be done to correct the
situation but perhaps in the future, if somebody can benefit from what
occurred in our area . So what I 'd like to do is just walk through, and
Larry' s already capsulated a couple of things. The agreement was 140 foot
covenant from the back line of my property. I ' ll just mention that I 'm
directly behind the property up on the screen and that was the agreement
' with the developer at that time. If I can indulge in your patience for
just a few minutes . I ' ll quote from some of your Planning Commission
meeting notes. From May 4, 1988, Roxanne Lund was assuring all of us that
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4104
1