The URL can be used to link to this page

7 Site Plan Approval I- Z <r CJ - ...J 1. 1- :::( :( - ~ J - - ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN P.c. DATE: 8-5-98 7 C.C. DATE: 8-24-98 CASE: 97-4 Site Plan BY: AI-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Approval for an 8,249.5 square foot multi-tenant retail building with the major tenant being Video Update LOCATION: Lot 1, Block I, Seven and Forty-one Crossing, southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and 41 APPLICANT: KKE Architects 300 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339-4200 Attn: Mr. Ron Krank 7 & 41, L.L.c. 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612)591-2260 PRESENT ZONING: BN, Neighborhood Business District ACREAGE: 1.2 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Highway 7 S - 7 & 41 Crossing Shopping Center E - SuperAmerica W - RSF, single family SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is fairly level with mature vegetation along the west border. 2000 LAND USE: Residential Medium Density (Net Density Range 4 - 8 units per acre) c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :> 0 0 0 0 0 :> 0 0 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 rI 0 0) r-- \D \n .'Of r"l N rI ~ r"l N N N N C'l ~ ('Il N N N N N \ \ \ City of Shorewood ~......:.,).",.,.:. . .,' ~.. \"'- "'"., .~ Vii>:' ~' '# ~ / Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 2 This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 5,1998. There has been changes to the plan based upon discussions with the applicant and Planning Commission. Changes have been made to the staff report. .All new information will appear in bold, while the impertinent information has been stricken. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construction of an 8,249.5 square foot multi- tenant retail building with the major tenant being Video Update. The site is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Seven and Forty-one Crossing, and is located on the southwest corner of the intersection ofHwys. 7 and 41. The lot area of Lot 1 is 1.2 acres. It is zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District. A retail building is a permitted use in the BN District. Access to the site is proposed to take place via a right-in only from Highway 7, and from Highway 41 across an existing parking lot for the 7 & 41 Shopping Center, to the subject site. The site plan for the retail building is reasonably well developed. The building is proposed to utilize face brick on all four elevations, a rock face block accent band surrounding the building, and a stucco entrance along the north elevation. Metal structures are used on the sides of the entrances as accents to match the existing shopping center located south of the subject site. The entrance to Video Update is of a stucco material. There are two horizontal red neon lights that rap around the Video Update portion of the building, as wen as the area surrmmding the corners of the entry'.Yay into Video Update. The neon light is part of Video Update's commercial identification sign. It can also be construed as a logo or company symbol. Staff originally recommended that the neon light be limited to the area surrounding the entry way to Video Update along the north elevation. The Planning Commission recommended that the neon light be treated as a logo consistent with the sign ordinance requirements. The sign ordinance states "Company symbols, display messages, pictorial presentations, illustrations, or decorations (anything other than wording) shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area." The neon light occupies 8.5 square feet (or 8.8% of the sign area) along the north elevation and 4 square feet (or 5.3% of the sign area) along the east elevation. Therefore, the neon light area is consistent with the sign ordinance requirements. Staff is not opposed to the aeon aro\ind the st11000 entrance, however, the portion that extends along the briok walls is exoessi'le aad should be removed. The southern half of the building l:ltilizes standing seam metal oanopies above the ',vindows to matoh the existing 7 & 11 Crossing Shopping Center. Staff is reoommending the applicant remove the neon light band abo':e the north half of the eastern ele'/ation and incorporate the same standing seam metal canopy above the windo',v. Parking for vehicles is located on the east half of the site and north of the subject building. Typically, staff works with the applicant to screen parking lots from views. However, the site Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 3 design for this shopping center is established and it appears that the proposed location for the building is the logical one. The parking lot setback does not meet ordinance requirements from Highway 7. The ordinance allows a 10 foot parking lot setback from public right-of-way in cases when the parking is screened 100%. Otherwise, it is required to have a 25 foot setback. The site plan is showing a 10 foot setback from Highway 7. The applicant is proposing to screen that portion of the parking lot by a meandering berm and vegetation. The drive isles are 24 feet wide. The ordinance requires a minimum width of 26 feet. The plan must be amended to show wider drive isles. Staff is recommending the applicant reduce the width of the service lane located west of the building by 4 feet and turn it into a one way street. This will permit the drive aisles in the parking lot to be widened to 26 feet. The ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. The plans reflect a 5 foot building setback from the southern property line. The applicant must increase the setback from the southern property line by 10 feet. The landscaping plan meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance with the exception of one additional tree along the north portion of the site. Also, it appears that all the parking islands have a width ofless than 10 feet. Staff is recommending these islands be widened to a minimum width of 10 feet. There is an existing vegetated buffer along the west side of the site. The existing vegetation is not shown on the survey. It appears that the overall grading limits do not disturb this area with the exception of the northwest and southwest comers. This natural buffer acts as a barrier between the subject site and the residential neighborhood located west of the 7 & 41 Crossing Shopping Center and staff is recommending the applicant leave this buffer undisturbed. The applicant is providing additional buffer between the proposed building and the residential neighborhood to the west. The site plan findings section require that a site plan be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan guides the property as medium density residential. In 1988, when the zoning of the property was changed from 01 to BN, a minor comprehensive plan amendment should have been processed concurrently with the rezoning. Staff believes it was an oversight. Over the next year, staffwill be processing overall amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map to ensure they are consistent and this will be one of the changes that will be processed at that time. The recommendation will be to reguide the property from medium density residential to commercial. This amendment will encompass the entire Seven and Forty-one Crossing Subdivision. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staffis recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, with conditions. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 4 BACKGROUND On April 25, 1988, the City Council approved the first reading for the rezoning of the property at the southwest corner of Hwy. 7 and 41 for 01, Office Institutional to BN, Neighborhood Business District. On the same date, the Council also approved the subdivision of the subject property into 3 commercial lots. Lot 2 contains the 7 & 41 Shopping Center and Lot 3 contains the SuperAmerica Gas Station. Lot 1 is the subject site and is proposed to contain a multi-tenant retail building. In 1988, when the site (Shopping Center, SuperAmerica, and the subject site) was being prepared for subdivision and development, it was under single ownership. As the shopping center and SuperAmerica were sold off to other parties, a cross access easement was recorded in favor of the SuperAmerica site to share access with the shopping center. The third site (Lot 1, Block 1, Seven and Forty-one Crossing) was left landlocked. On July 14, 1997, the City Council approved Site Plan Review #97-4 for a 9,680 square foot multi-tenant retail building with the major tenant being Video Update. One of the conditions of approval stated "The applicant shall provide the City with a recorded copy of a cross access agreement or such other evidences as acceptable to staff to establish adequate ingress and egress between Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven and Forty-one Crossing." This was not accomplished and the owner of the 7 & 41 Crossing Shopping Center purchased Lot 2 and is requesting approval for a revised site plan application. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed one story multi-tenant retail building, with an area of8,249.5 square feet, will be situated parallel to and south of Highway 7. The site is bordered by Highway 7 to the north, SuperAmerica to the east, a residential neighborhood to the west, and 7 & 41 Crossing Shopping Center to the south. Access to the building is proposed from Highway 7 through a right-in only, and from Highway 41, through the shopping center parking lot and into two curb cuts located south of the subject site. Parking will be located to the east and north of the proposed building. The building is located 80 feet from the north, 110 feet from the east, 5 feet from the south, and 74 feet from the west property line. The ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant must increase the setback from the southern property line by 10 feet. Materials used on the building will consist of face brick on all four elevations with rock face block horizontal bands rapping around the building. The face brick was utilized to match the materials used on the shopping center building. There are metal structures (also to match the existing shopping center) along the entryways into the building. The entrance to Video Update is of a stucco material. There are two horizontal red neon lights that rap around the Video Update portion of the building, as well as the area surrounding the corners of the entryway into Video Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 5 Update. The neon light is part of Video Update's commercial identification sign. Staff is Flot =:: lh. ReaR IlfOUIl<I tho stRoeo _0., Iiowever, ~ ~~~~ ~::.:~-: ::: ~=;;:.1: :'7:~~: :" ~=d be _",'00 FmtftOffilO;', the offiinanee r~~:~~'. ~~~,::y t a ' gs. The red Fleon stops halfway along the east elevatHm '::lueh detraets from the design of the building. The building's architecture is suitable for a shopping center and meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The BN Ordinance does not allow for drive through establishments. The existing driveway located west of the proposed building is a service driveway only. Staff wanted to point out this issue to bring it to the applicant's attention that this driveway may not be converted in the future to accommodate a drive through establishment. A parking lot light plan is required. The current plan does not include a light plan. Such must be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Only shielded fixtures are permitted with no more than Yz foot candle at the property line to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The plan should incorporate the light style and height. Light fixtures shall be shielded to ensure there is no glare spilling beyond a 90 degree angle. Staff is also requiring a more detailed sign plan which should include lighting method. The site plan shows the trash enclosure located south of the building. The applicant shall use materials to match the building when constructing the trash enclosure. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation ofa harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 6 (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the zoning ordinance, however, the comprehensive plan guides the property as medium density residential. In 1988, when the zoning of the property was changed from 01 to BN, a minor comprehensive plan amendment should have been processed concurrently with the rezoning. Staff believes it was an oversight. Staff is recommending the site plan be approved. Over the next year, staff will be processing overall amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map to ensure they are consistent and this will be one of the changes that will be processed at that time. The recommendation will be to reguide the property from medium density residential to commercial. This amendment will encompass the entire Seven and Forty-one Crossing subdivision. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. WETLANDS There do not appear to be wetlands on the parcel. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 7 GRADING The site was rough graded with the initial development of Seven Forty-one Crossing. Additional grading is proposed on the westerly slope for the trash enclosure and driveway around the building. During review of the initial development (Seven Forty-one Crossing), there were concerns for screening by the neighborhood to the west. The landscape plan proposes some restoration of the slope; however, the existing vegetation provides the adjacent neighborhood with a significant buffer. The applicant should explore the use of retaining walls or relocating the trash enclosure and eliminating the drive aisle around the building to minimize grading and tree loss. Another alternative would be to intensify the landscape plan to replace the buffer being lost in the southwest comer of the site due to grading. The building and first floor elevations propose to be two feet higher than the existing grade. The building elevation is approximately the same elevation as the SuperAmerica station next door. A 2-3 foot high earth berm is proposed along the north side of the site adjacent to Hwy. 7 to screen the northerly parking lot. DRAINAGE The storm sewer system for this site was developed with the initial phase of the development. No further downstream storm drainage improvements will be required. The applicant's engineer shall provide detailed storm drainage calculations for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event to the city engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The utility service to the site is actually a private utility system owned and maintained by the shopping center association. The utility plans will be subject to review and approval by the City's Building Department at time of building permit application. The appropriate city sewer and water hookup charges will be applied at building permit issuance. These hookup charges are based on the number of Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Services Commission at time of building plan review. The 1998 trunk hookup charges for sewer and water are $1,216 and $1,584, respectively. ACCESS The site is accessed internally from the shopping center which has access from Trunk Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 41. Access to the shopping center from Trunk Highway 7 is restricted to a right-in only. A full access to and from the site is available at Trunk Highway 7. Upon review of the parking lot circulation, staff has some concerns about the number of access points to the site from the internal development. pedestrian safety may be compromised with the number of Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 8 access points proposed. The site can function with only one access from the south versus the two. The access point in the southeast comer of the parking lot should be eliminated due to the close proximity to the main north/south thoroughfare along the east property line. A similar site plan was submitted last year and approved by the City that restricted the site to two access points- -one from the south and one from the east. The parking lot layout should be redesigned to take this into account as well as city code for drive aisle widths and radiuses. The existing curb radius of the north/south main thoroughfare is proposed to be decreased. To provide adequate turning movements for passenger and truck vehicles, this radius should not be decreased. Drive aisle widths per City Code 20-1118 adjacent to parking stalls shall be 26 feet wide. Plans also propose a service drive around the building. The drive aisle width is proposed at 24 feet wide. If the applicant chooses to make the drive aisle one-way, the drive aisle width could be reduced to 20 feet in width which would allow the building to be shifted westerly to expand parking areas and landscape median islands. The plans also propose a 5-foot landscape median between the parking lot and the main north/south drive aisle to Trunk Highway 7. This landscape area is very narrow and it would be difficult for landscape to grow and accommodate snow storage. The median should be similar to the SA site, approximately 15 feet in width, to provide adequate room for landscaping and snow storage. A traffic signage plan needs to be prepared for review and approval by staff at time of building permit application. EROSION CONTROL The plans lack the appropriate erosion control measures in accordance with city ordinance. The plans need to be revised to include erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice handbook. MISCELLANEOUS Staff has verified the impervious surface calculations on the plans and finds that the impervious surface is closer to 71 % versus the 54% as stated on the site plan. The applicant should recalculate the impervious surface shown on the plans. PARKING The City's parking ordinance for retail buildings requires 1 space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area. This site will require 50 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 50 which meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that accessible parking spaces be provided at the rate of one accessible space per every 25 spaces in the lot(s). The site pan shows 2 spaces. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 9 LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 1,567 sq. f1. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 6 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along Highway 7 and neighboring property lines. The applicant has met the landscape area and parking lot tree requirements. However, the majority of the required landscape islands and peninsulas in the parking lot are each less than 10' in width and would therefore require aeration tubes to be installed. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the width of the islands and peninsulas rather that install the tubes. The buffer yard requirements along highway 7 includes a total of3 over story, 6 under story, and lO shrubs. The applicant is short one under story tree, but has provided the minimum requirements for the over story trees and shrubs. Buffer yard requirements along the west side of the site include a minimum of3 over story, 6 under story and 9 shrubs. Since there is existing vegetation, the applicant has proposed 4 over story trees and 5 under story trees. Staff finds this acceptable, but is concerned that the existing trees and shrubs remain and are protected during construction. The applicant must install a tree protection fence before grading on the site begins. LIGHTING Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than Y2 foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. Light fixtures shall be shielded to ensure there is no glare spilling beyond a 90 degree angle. SIGNAGE The applicant is showing signage along three two elevations (north, east, and south). The sign ordinance state One wall business sign shall be permitted on the street frontage for each business occupant within a building. This would limit signage to the north elevation only. Since there is a private driveway along the east side of the building and since the majority of the parking lot is located along the east side of the building, staff believes that the applicant should be permitted to have signage along the east elevation. The sigH. aloflg the sol:lthem eleva-tiaR must be removed. The plans originally showed signs along three elevations, however, the applicant revised the plans based upon staff's recommendation to reflect sign age along the north and east elevations only. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 10 The north half of the building will be occupied by Video Update and is proposing to have one sign along the north elevation with an area of.w.g 96 square feet. The signs along the east elevation have an area of75 and 63 square feet. These three signs are in keeping with the sign ordinance requirements. All three signs meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. One issue that staff feels should be discussed relates to neon lights. During the preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding the plans, a vibrant pink/red neon light that raps around the building was discussed. This neon light is shown along the north and northeast half of the building. There are two horizontal red neon lights that rap around the Video Update portion of the building, as well as the area surrounding the comers of the entryway into Video Update. The neon light is part of Video Update's commercial identification sign. It can also be construed as a logo or company symbol. Staff originally recommended that the neon light be limited to the area surrounding the entry way to Video Update along the north elevation. The Planning Commission recommended that the neon light be treated as a logo consistent with the sign ordinance requirements. The sign ordinance states "Company symbols, display messages, pictorial presentations, illustrations, or decorations (anything other than wording) shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent o/the sign display area." The neon light occupies 8.5 square feet (or 8.8% of the sign area) along the north elevation and 4 square feet (or 5.3% ofthe sign area) along the east elevation. Therefore, the neon light area is consistent with the sign ordinance requirements. Staff is not opposed to the neon around the stucco entrance, ho'.ve':er, the portion that extends along the briok '.'..alls is excessive and should be removed. Furthermore, the ordinanoe requires consistenoy in signage on ml:llti tenant buildings. The red neon stops halfway along the east ele'..ation ',vhich detraots from the design of the building. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 24 square feet and a height of 5 feet. There are two existing pillars on the site to accommodate a future sign, however, the applicant is not showing a ground low profile sign on the plans. Should the applicant request a sign in the future, it must meet ordinance requirements and must be located 10 feet from the property line. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 11 COMPLIANCE TABLE - lOP DISTRICT Ordinance Retail Building Building Height 1 story 1 story Building Setback N-35' E-15' S-l5' W-50' N-80' E-110 S-5'* W-74' Parking stalls 50 stalls 50 stalls Parking Setback N-25' E-O' S-O' W -50' N-lO'** E-5' S-7.5' W-50' Hard surface Coverage 65% 53.4% Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft 1.2 acres * The ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is providing 5 feet. This setback must be increased by an additional 10 feet from the southern property line. ** As mentioned in the landscape portion of the report, the ordinance states that Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one-hundred -percent screening is provided at least five (5) feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. The applicant is showing a 10 foot parking lot setback from Highway 7. The ordinance typically requires a 25 foot setback from public right-of-way. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the 10 foot flexibility in the ordinance, and has provided berming and landscaping along the area that encroaches into the required setback. Staff recommends the reduced setback be approved. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On August 5, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application. The main issue dealt with the neon light on the east elevation. Some of the commissioners wanted to see the neon light limited to the north elevation only, while others felt it gave the building a festive look. The Planning Commission voted to allow the neon along the east elevation as long as it met the sign ordinance requirements. The second issue dealt with the two access points located south of the subject site. Staff recommended elimination of one of the access points for safety reasons. A more open parking lot encourages excessive speeding. Pedestrian safety becomes a concern. Additionally, the previous site plan approval had one access off the south and one access off the east. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The City Council approves Site Plan Review #97-4 as shown on the site plan dated received July 9, 1998, and revised on August 4, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the ordinance requirements. Brick shall be used on the base of the ground low profile sign if a sign was erected. If a neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, and if it falls within city sign ordinance specifications, it shall be limited to the north entryway of Video Update. No signage will be permitted along the southern elevation. 3. Ornamentals planted along highway 7 should be salt tolerant. Replace crabapples with Japanese tree lilac or other such salt tolerant species. 4. Increase under story plantings in buffer yard to 6 trees. 5. Increase all parking lot islands and peninsulas to 10' in width. 6. Install tree protection fencing around existing vegetation on the west side of the property prior to construction. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 13 7. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Install a P.LV. (post indicator valve). Valve location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 9. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. 10. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Lighting Plans shall include photometrics, wattage, treatment for glare, etc. 11. Building Official's conditions: a. Meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. 12. At time of building permit issuance, the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Services Commission. 13. The applicant shall intensify the landscaping plan along the westerly slope to restore the existing buffer to the original condition or better. 14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event to the city engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. The site plan shall be revised to include the following: a) The radius on the north/south drive aisle in the southeasterly comer shall remain at 20 feet, b) The parking lot and drive aisles shall be redesigned in accordance with City Code 20-1118, c) Provide minimum 10 foot landscape median between parking lot and north/south drive aisle from Trunk Highway 7, d) Delete southeasterly driveway entrance from existing parking lot, e) Erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. Prepare a traffic signage plan for review and approval by staff. 17. Recalculate impervious surface percentage. Video Update August 24, 1998 Page 14 18. All roof top equipment shall be screened from views. 19. The building setback along the southern property line shall be increased to 15 feet." 20. The applicant shall remove the neon light band above the north half of the eastern elevation and inoorporate standing seam metal canopy above the vlindmv." A TT ACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated July 28, 1998. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated July 23, 1998. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 23, 1998. 4. Application. 5. Narrative. 6. Cross Access Easement Agreement. 7. Plan showing the layout of the 7&41 crossing subdivision. 8. Public hearing notice and property owners list. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated August 5, 1998. 10. Plans received July 9, 1998, revised August 4, 1998. g: \plan\sa\ video.2 .doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Cit) Ct'lIIer Dril't', PO Box J.f' (/'i/U!'il'_'I'Ii, Millllcsotil 5531"' Phollc 6ll937.l900 GI'Iit'1I11 F;z.\- 612.9.F.F39 f;/x 6ll9.F9i5] MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer~ FROM: DATE: July 28, 1998 SUBJ: Review of Video Update Site Plan - File No. 97-8 LUR (Lot 1, Block 1, Seven Forty-one Crossing) Upon review of the plans prepared by James R. Hill dated July 7, 1998, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING The site was rough graded with the initial development of Seven Forty-one Crossing. Additional grading is proposed on the westerly slope for the trash enclosure and driveway around the building. During review of the initial development (Seven Forty- one Crossing), there were concerns for screening by the neighborhood to the west. The landscape plan proposes some restoration of the slope; however, the existing vegetation provides the adjacent neighborhood with a significant buffer. The applicant should explore the use of retaining walls or relocating the trash enclosure and eliminating the drive aisle around the building to minimize grading and tree loss. Another alternative would be to intensify the landscape plan to replace the buffer being lost in the southwest corner of the site due to grading. The building and first floor elevations propose to be two feet higher than the existing grade. The building elevation is approximately the same elevation as the Super America station next door. A 2-3 foot high earth berm is proposed along the north side of the site adjacent to Hwy. 7 to screen the northerly parking lot. DRAINAGE The storm sewer system for this site was developed with the initial phase of the development. No further downstream storm drainage improvements will be required. The applicant's engineer shall provide detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10- year, 24-hour storm event to the city engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The utility service to the site is actually a private utility system owned and maintained by the shopping center association. The utility plans will be subject to review and approval by the City's Tbe City ~fClJilldJilssell. A glO/l'il/g CIIIIllI//lnit)' lI,ith cleilll lake." if/liz/it)' schools, {/ ChilJ1llil/g dOll'lltoll'll, thril'il/g b!iJ'il/esses, ilnd !mllltijit/ parks_ A g;-t'dt p!./t'c to lil'c, liwk, , Sharmin AI-Jaff Video Update Site Plan Review July 27, 1998 Page 2 Building Department at time of building permit application. The appropriate city sewer and water hookup charges will be applied at building permit issuance. These hookup charges are based on the number of Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Services Commission at time of building plan review. The 1998 trunk hookup charges for sewer and water are $1,216 and $1,584, respectively. ACCESS The site is accessed internally from the shopping center which has access from Trunk Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 41. Access to the shopping center from Trunk Highway 7 is restricted to a right-in only. A full access to and from the site is available at Trunk Highway 7. Upon review of the parking lot circulation, staff has some concerns about the number of access points to the site from the internal development. Staff has concerns that pedestrian safety may be compromised with the number of access points proposed. Staff believes the site can function with only one access from the south versus the two. Staff believes that the access point in the southeast corner of the parking lot should be eliminated due to the close proximity to the main north/south thoroughfare along the east property line. A similar site plan was submitted last year and approved by the City that restricted the site to two access points--one from the south and one from the east. Staff believes the parking lot layout should be redesigned to take this into account as well as city code for drive aisle widths and radiuses. The existing curb radius of the north/south main thoroughfare is proposed to be decreased. To provide adequate turning movements for passenger and truck vehicles, this radius should not be decreased. Drive aisle widths per City Code 20-1118 adjacent to parking stalls shall be 26 feet wide. Plans also propose a service drive around the building. The drive aisle width is proposed at 24 feet wide. If the applicant chooses to make the drive aisle one-way, the drive aisle width could be reduced to 20 feet in width which would allow the building to be shifted westerly to expand parking areas and landscape median islands. The plans also propose a 5-foot landscape median between the parking lot and the main north/south drive aisle to Trunk Highway 7. This landscape area is very narrow and it would be difficult for landscape to grow and accommodate snow storage. Staff believes that the median should be similar to the SA site, approximately 15 feet in width, to provide adequate room for landscaping and snow storage. A traffic signage plan needs to be prepared for review and approval by staff at time of building permit application. Sharmin Al-Jaff Video Update Site Plan Review July 27, 1998 Page 3 EROSION CONTROL The plans lack the appropriate erosion control measures in accordance with city ordinance. The plans need to be revised to include erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice handbook. MISCELLANEOUS Staff has verified the impervious surface calculations on the plans and finds that the impervious surface is closer to 71 % versus the 54% as stated on the site plan. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL 1. At time of building permit issuance, the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission. 2. The applicant shall intensify the landscaping plan along the westerly slope to restore the existing buffer to the original condition or better. 3. The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event to the city engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The site plan shall be revised to include the following: a) The radius on the north/south drive aisle in the southeasterly corner shall remain at 20 feet, b) The parking lot and drive aisles shall be redesigned in accordance with City Code 20- 1118, c) Provide minimum 10 foot landscape median between parking lot and north/south drive aisle from Trunk Highway 7, d) Delete southeasterly driveway entrance from existing parking lot, e) Erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Prepare a traffic signage plan for review and approval by staff. 6. Recalculate impervious surface percentage. c: Anita Benson, City Engineer g:\eng\dave'flc\video update l.spr.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN C~itJ' CmtcrDril'c, PO Box IF ,\/ilillc,otd 55317 Pllo!/e 61l.9F 1900 ,mciill f;'1612.9,F.5~39 'ii/leiiwl hI' 61 ].9.3~. 91 'il " f: hI 6j] 9.3ll'il.} /1,\' MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI- Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 23, 1998 SUBJ: Request for Site Plan Approval for an 8,249.5 square foot Multi- Tenant Retail Building with the Major Tenant being Video Update Located on Block I, Lot 1, Seven and Forty One Crossing, Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Highway 7 and 41, KKE Architects Planning Case #97-4 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirement. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Install a P.LV. (post indicator valve). Valve location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. ML:cd g:\safety\ml\97.4Site Z)' ofClJi/l/bilSSCI/. A grOll'iilg ((IIIIII/III/if)' wit!, de,!!! !jlulit)' .'(;'OO/.i, il (huJIlillg dowl/toll'lI, t!Iril'iilg bll!'iIlCSSe,i, iII/{1 bflllltijid piII!'S, ,.] ,~rtdt pldCt, 10 Iii 'I', II'0rl" dild pld): CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4- q .\ \ ., July 23, 1998 690 (it)' (ellter Dril'e, PO BOI 14 ~ Cf"li111tIsseJl, Millllesotll 55317 P;'olle 612. 9.F.1900 Gmmd Fill 612.937.5-39 DATE: ElIgiJleerillg Fill 612.9379152 fl!lbli( S41)' 1';11 612. 9J12'ill SUBJECT: TO: 97-4 SPR (Video Update, KKE Architects) \\';(1 I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN I RECEIVED I JUL 23, 1998, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. II for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designer5 my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. G:\safety\sak\memos\plan\vidup I The CiZI' ofGlIl/bi/ssm. A growil/g (Olll/lIlIllit)' witb drill! ),-boo/'. ,1 cl/llI7llil/g dOWl/tOll'lI. tl/l'il'illg bllSilleSies. IIl1d lliiilllifit! plllki. ,.j grelll pllll'e 10 lii'e, [('od CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLlCA nON /</ J / . =>L1CANT: < L ,;I If (' j-j In:' (' T \ OWNER: ? ( !/~. l/.. t ADDRESS: r:.,'l)~'~' /,'r.,y__7,~r It ,,6:.t//) /1 /'/ S : /y ,I,,<..; /'-.. )":,,-':/ /1> ,c- (.'/ J 1 . TELEPHONE: "')"/ - ./. > .. C;, ( J \" /,~.' DRESS 'J" ;:: /1._ A. , /t, . /' -.oJ ' : 7 (' I' I I'. I I ,,,'..- '. ''; .." . .... I J., , '7 /1 )1..<, S 1';>/";;"- c.,' <;'Y (. / -) (' ..EPHONE (Day time) ).7 r ~ '/ ~(.:::. . (I /' /1. / A {..<. j, /~ .. ".'- ).:. " ~, .;... ..) ....' _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements - Interim Use Permit - Variance _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit _ Planned Unit Development. _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign "- ~ Site Plan Review. --X.. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPR/V ACN AR/W AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) - Subdivision. TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~wenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted,lncluding an 8Vz" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. .. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract "E - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME r !/J:! / ( !-t/'! "'.. ;-1/1-'; \'~ ,'./ ,," i 1)10", /1 r /).4 7/ , LOCATION Sr.. -.""- (I -I'" j ,.-'" /1 ..~ [" t! ' 1-, I, " ,,-::- <; , , r~ /~ , . f ('r '7/ "// LEGAL DESCRIPTION /':' -T- / ;;> (' (p/ I . '/ . / (" ,. ---, "" ,__ i,..- /' ..J i::" {. r:~ ",."' r,.,.J , I (,.J ...-to' ,L { /1 'r' ;'_' /'j,,~./ A;('_ I. j 'i K '1,lft e/J/ j . YES v"No JLf: I (. "I ;; (I.': )/ (, ~., ,) TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING ;C /~ I (,.../1 Ii t./' ;'-1 <.~ ,'i ) Ar I ~ /A.:/ ~ \. ^.! < -' .il /? ~ ~ PRESENT lAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED 1Jo.ND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 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 Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom 1he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tjtle, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to an~ authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best 01 my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearin~ requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 da~ extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional revie~ extensions are approved by the applicant. I?(? ~/ . ~ Date (If! t:F/I'1 JvA< r(' 7/8 .I~F 7 ..( If' ( J,J (' Date / Fee Paid Receipt No. Application Received on The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meetln~ Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. PROPOSED RETAIL BUILDING NARRATIVE July 8, 1998 This building's architectural design derives its character from the existing retail center and the neighboring gas/convenience. The materials match the surrounding buildings in brick color, metal colors, and storefront mullion color. Special design features are incorporated at key comers and entries that reflect the brick detailing and metal structures of the existing retail, yet at a proportion more appropriate to this smaller free-standing building; rock face block bands and base further the continuity of the design. The Video Update area incorporates two neon bands at north and east elevations only so as not to be visible from the residential area. Its prototype marquee has been modified to compliment the design. The remaining tenant space utilizes a colorful standing seam metal canopy to add a festive pedestrian feeling. All signage is conforming to the city ordinance in location, size and will be individually mounted with illuminated letters having a common metal surround color to match the existing center signage. Rooftop units will be screened by the raised parapet area of Video Update and painted to match the metal coping. The trash enclosure is brick to match the building with metal gates that are secured. The site plan is designed with 35% green area. The service drive is screened from the neighboring residential area by the existing vegetation and grade that provides 100% opaqueness. The parking is screened from the highway with a meandering 3' high berm with a 2' high evergreen shrubs on top. A sidewalk has been provided that extends to the south lot line. The owner will obtain a cross parking easement between the sites to ensure continuity and flow. (RESERVED FOR RECORDING DATA) OPERATION AND EASEMENT AGREEMENT -rt.. This Operation and Easement Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of the ~ day of December, 1997,_ by and between 7 & 41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Crossings"), and Arnold M. Soskin ("Soskin"). Crossings and Soskin are sometimes hereafter individually or collectively referred to as a "Party" or the "Parties." RECIT ALS A. Crossings is the fee owner of a tract of land in Carver County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, SEVEN FORTY ONE CROSSING, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Carver County, Minnesota ("Crossings Tract"). B. By deed recorded concurrently herewith, Soskin has acquired fee title to a tract of land in Carver County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, SEVEN FORTY ONE CROSSING, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Carver County, Minnesota ("Soskin Tract"). The Soskin Tract is contiguous and adjacent to the Crossings Tract. C. The Crossings Tract and the Soskin Tract (sometimes individually a "Tract;" collectively, the "Tracts" or the "Shopping Center") are intended to be operated in conjunction with each other, and in order to effectuate the operation thereof, Crossings and Soskin desire to enter into certain covenants and agreements, and to grant an easement in, to, over, and across a portion of the Crossings Tract in favor of the Soskin Tract. D. By deed recorded concurrently herewith, Soskin has conveyed fee title to the Soskin Tract to 7 & 41, LLC. In exchange for this conveyance, 7 & 41, LLC has executed and delivered its promissory note in the amount of $345,000 ("Soskin Note"), which Soskin Note is secured by a mortgage of even date herewith ("Soskin Mortgage"). 1604101.043 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Crossings and Soskin hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 2. Access Easement. Crossings hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to the present and any future owner of the Soskin Tract, its employees, licensees, invitees, tenants and customers, a nonexclusive perpetual easement in common with Crossings and others entitled to use the same, for the purpose of ingress and egress of vehicular and pedestrian traffic ("Access Easement"), extending over, upon and across the portion of the Crossings Tract legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Easement Area"). 3. Buildinl: Hei~ht Restrictions. No building in the Shopping Center shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height. For purposes of this paragraph, building height shall be measured from the finished Hoor elevation to the top of the roof structure, including any screening, parapet, penthouse, mechanical equipment or similar appurtenance located on the roof of such building, but not including communications equipment (such as antennas, laser heads, satellite dishes and microwave dishes) used in connection with the businesses being conducted in the Shopping Center. 4. Use Restrictions. 4.1. The Shopping Center shall be used only for retail sales, offices, restaurants or other commercial purposes. No use shall be permitted in the Shopping Center which is inconsistent with the operation of a first-class retail shopping center. 4.2. At the time that a Party, or a tenant of a Party, proposes a particular use on the Party's Tract, the Party owning that Tract shall request from the owner of the other Tract a list of its exclusive uses, which list shall be delivered to the requesting Party within three (3) days of receiving such request. No use shall be permitted on either the Crossings Tract or the Soskin Tract which violates an exclusive use that, at that time, exists on the other Tract. 4.3. Crossings and Soskin shall use their best efforts to cause the employees of the occupants oftheir respective Tracts to park their vehicles only on such Tract. 5. Common Area. 5.1. In addition to the definitions set forth above, for the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: 1604101.04 2 5.1.1. "Administration Fee" means an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the Common Area Maintenance Costs (exclusive of insurance premiums and utility charges) which Crossings shall be permitted to charge in lieu of its profit, administrative costs and overhead costs associated with the operation, maintenance and insurance of the Common Area. 5 .1.2. "Building Area" means all areas within the outside surfaces of the exterior walls of a building or buildings. 5.1.3. "Common Area" means all areas within the exterior boundaries of the Crossings Tract, exclusive of buildings. 5.1.4. "Common Area Maintenance Costs" means such funds that are reasonably necessary for the operation, maintenance and insurance of the Common Area, but not including: (i) real property taxes and assessments; (ii) any costs to clean up or repair the Common Area resulting from construction, maintenance or replacement of buildings; (iii) any charge for electricity to a Party that separately pays the electrical costs for lighting the Common Area; or (iv) Crossings' profit, administrative costs and overhead costs associated with its operation, maintenance and insurance of the Common Area. 5.2. Crossings, or its agents, shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, the Common Area in a sightly, safe condition and good state of repair comparable to the standard of maintenance followed in other first-class retail developments of comparable size in the City of Chanhassen and surrounding communities. Crossings' maintenance and repair obligation shall include but not be limited to the following: 5.2.1. Drive and Parkin~ Areas. Maintaining all paved surfaces and curbs in a smooth and evenly covered condition; maintaining appropriate directional, stop, or handicap parking signs or markers; and restriping parking lots and driveways as necessary to maintain parking space designations and traffic direction. 5.2.2. Debris. Refuse. and Snow. Periodic removal of all papers, debris, refuse, ice and snow (in excess of two inches). 5.2.3. Li~hting. Maintaining, cleaning and replacing Common Area lighting fixtures. Exterior building lighting, including any lighting associated with the canopy or other architectural feature forming a part of a building, shall not be considered a Common Area improvement, and the maintenance and replacement of such fixtures and the cost of illumination shall be the obligation of the Party upon whose Tract such fixtures are located. 5.2.4. Landscapin~. Mowing all grassed areas and maintaining all landscape plantings, trees and shrubs in an attractive and thriving condition. 3 1604101.04 5.2.5. Common Utility Lines. Maintaining, cleaning, replacing and repairing any and all utility lines which are installed to provide the applicable service to both the Crossings Tract and the Soskin Tract. 5.2.6. Sidewalks. Maintaining all sidewalks, including those adjacent and contiguous to buildings located within the Crossings Tract. 5.3. Soskin hereby grants to Crossings, its agents and employees, a license to enter upon its Tract to discharge Crossings' duties to operate, maintain and repair the Common Area. 5.4. Crossings and Soskin agree to pay their proportionate shares of Common Area Maintenance Costs and the Administration Fee ("Shared Costs"). Each Party's proportionate share shall be the amount that is equal to the product of the Shared Costs multiplied by the fraction that results from dividing the Building Area on the Party's Tract by the total Building Area in the Shopping Center. 5.5. Crossings shall, at least ninety (90) days prior to the beginning of each calendar year, submit to Soskin an estimated budget ("Budget") for the Shared Costs for the ensuing calendar year. 5.6. Soskin shall pay to Crossings in equal monthly payments, in advance, its share of the Shared Costs based upon the amount set forth in the Budget. Within 45 days after the end of each calendar year, Crossings shall provide Soskin with a statement certified by an authorized person, together with supporting invoices and other materials, setting forth the actual Common Area Maintenance Costs paid by it for the operation and maintenance of such Common Area, the Administrative Fee, and the share of the aggregate thereof that is allocable to the Soskin Tract. If the amount paid with respect to the Soskin Tract for such calendar year shall have exceeded the share allocable to such Tract in the Budget, Crossings shall refund the excess to Soskin at the time such certified statement is delivered. If the amount paid with respect to the Soskin Tract for such calendar year shall be less than the share allocable to such Tract in the Budget, Soskin at the time such certified statement is delivered shall pay the balance of its share to Crossings within thirty (30) days after receipt of such certified statement. 6. Buildin~ Maintenance. Crossings and Soskin covenant and agree to maintain and keep the exterior portion of the buildings on their respective Tracts in first-class condition and state of repair, and in compliance with all governmental laws, rules, regulations, orders and ordinances exercising jurisdiction thereover. Each Party further agrees to store all trash and garbage in adequate containers, to locate such containers so that they not readily visible from the parking area, and to arrange for regular removal of such trash or garbage. 7. Sicns. No free-standing sign shall be permitted within the Soskin Tract unless constructed in areas designated on the Site Plan (defined below). If a free-standing sign is constructed on the Soskin Tract, Soskin shall be responsible for the sign's operation 1604101.04 4 and maintenance on a first-class basis. Crossings shall have the right to approve the design and size of all free-standing signs, including the panel inserts. 8. Taxes and Assessments. Each Party shall payor cause to be paid prior to delinquency, all taxes and assessments with respect to its Tract, the building and other improvements located thereon, and any personal property owned or leased by such Party and situated in the Shopping Center. 9. Indemnification. Each Party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other Party from and against all claims and demands, including any action or proceeding brought thereon, and all costs, losses, expenses and liabilities of any kind related thereto, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or resulting from (i) any construction activities performed or authorized by such indemnifying Party; (ii) any liens filed against the Tract of one Party as a result of services performed or materials furnished for the use of the other Party; and (iii) any injury to or death of any person, or damage to the property of any person, while such person or property is situated on the Tract owned by the indemnifying Party; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be applicable to either events or circumstances caused by the negligence or willful act or omission of the indemnified Party, its licensees, concessionaires, -agents, servants, employees or anyone claiming by, through or under any of them. 10. Lil::htin~. Each Party hereby covenants and agrees to keep its Tract fully illuminated each day from dusk to at least 2:00 a.m., unless the Parties agree upon a different time period. Each Party further agrees to keep any exterior security lights on from dusk until dawn. 11. Default: Remedies. 11.1. Events of Default. The occurrence of one or both of the following events shall constitute a material default and breach of this Agreement by the non-performing Party (the "Defaulting Party"): (i) The failure to make any payment required to be made hereunder within ten (10) days of the due date, or (ii) the failure to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or obligations of this Agreement, other than the payment of money, within thirty (30) days after the issuance of a notice by the other party (the "Non-Defaulting Party") specifying the nature of the default claimed. 11.2. Le~al Proceedin~s. A Non-Defaulting Party shall have the right to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against any Defaulting Party hereto, or any other person, violating or attempting to violate or defaulting upon any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, and to recover damages for any such violation or default. Such proceeding shall include the right to restrain by injunction any violation or threatened violation by another of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement, or to obtain a decree to compel performance of any such terms, covenants, or conditions, it being agreed that the remedy at law for a breach of any such term, covenant, or condition (except those, if any, requiring the payment of a liquidated sum) is not adequate. All of the remedies permitted or available to a Party under this Agreement or at law or in equity 5 160410\.04 shall be cumulative and not alternative, and invocation of any such right or remedy shall not constitute a waiver or election of remedies with respect to any other permitted or available right or remedy. Notwithstanding anything to contrary contained in this Agreement, Crossings' right to offset its payments due Soskin under the Soskin Note to Soskin's obligations under this Agreement shall be limited to Soskin's obligations during such time as Soskin is a "New Owner" as defined in Paragraph 24 below. 11.3. Interest. If a Party fails to pay any sum due hereunder within ten (10) days of the due date, such Defaulting Party shall pay interest on such amount from the due date to and including the date such payment is received by the person entitled thereto, at the lesser of: (i) the highest non-usurious rate permitted by law to be either paid on such type of obligation by the person obligated to make such payment or charged by the person to whom such payment is due, whichever is less; or (ii) three percent (3%) per annum in excess of the prime rate from time to time publicly announced by Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. or its successor. 12. Notice. All notices, demands and requests (collectively "Notice") required or permitted to be given under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given as of the date such Notice is (i) delivered to the Party intended, (ii) delivered to the then designated address of the Party intended, (iii) rejected at the then designated address of the Party intended, provided such Notice was sent prepaid, or (iv) sent via facsimile so long as the original copy is also sent in the manner set forth in (i) or (ii) above on the same day. The initial addresses of the Parties shall be: Crossings: 7 & 41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1050 Golden Valley, MN 55416 Attention: Brian E. Pellowski Soskin: Arnold M. Soskin 653 Interchange Tower 600 South Highway 169 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Upon at least ten (10) days prior written notice, each Party shall have the right to change its address to any other address within the United States of America. 13. Approval Rights. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall limit the right of a Party, or any mortgagee of any Tract, to exercise its business judgment, or act in a subjective manner, with respect to any matter as to which it has specifically been granted such right, or the right to act in its sole discretion or sole judgment, whether "objectively" reasonable under the circumstances, and any such exercise shall not be deemed inconsistent with any covenant of good faith and fair dealing otherwise implied by law to be part of this Agreement; and the Parties intend by this Agreement to set forth their entire understanding with respect to the terms, covenants, conditions 1604101.04 6 and standards pursuant to which their obligations are to be judged and their performance measured. 14. Covenants Running with the Land. Successors and Assigns. Subject to Paragraph 24, the terms of this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the land (both the Crossings Tract and the Soskin Tract) and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement is not intended to supersede, modify, amend or otherwise change the provisions of any prior instrument affecting the Tracts. 15. Construction and Intet:pretation. This Agreement contains all of the representations and the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any prior negotiations, correspondence, memoranda or agreements are superseded in total by this Agreement. This Agreement has been fully negotiated at arms length between the signatories hereto, and after advice by counsel and other representatives chosen by such signatories, and such signatories are fully informed with respect thereto; no such signatory shall be deemed the scrivener of this Agreement; and, based on the foregoing, the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any Party. 16. Captions. The captions preceding the text of each article and section are included only for convenience of reference. Captions shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Capitalized terms are also selected only for convenience of reference and do not necessarily have any connection to the meaning that might otherwise be attached to such term in a context outside of this Agreement. 17. Invalidity. Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or of the application thereof to any person by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hereof or the application thereof to any other person and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 18. Negation of Partnership. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in their respective businesses or otherwise, nor shall it cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise. Each Party is a separate owner, and no Party shall have the right to act as an agent for the other Party. 19. Attorney's Fees. In the event of a dispute regarding the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs at all pre-trial, trial and appellate levels. 20. No Waiver. A Party's failure to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any rights or remedies which that Party may have hereunder, at law or in equity and shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default in any of such terms, covenants or conditions. No waiver by any Patty of any default under this Agreement shall be effective or binding on such Party unless 7 1604101.04 ~ .. - L'" .... ... ~ .-.a. '"---" ~ made in writing by such Party and no such waiver shall be implied from any omission by a Party to take action in respect to such default. 21. Consent by Mortgagee(s). Crossings agrees that it will use its best efforts to obtain the consent of its mortgagee(s), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, following execution and recordation of this Agreement. 22. Termination. The Access Easement granted in Paragraph 2 shall be perpetual. Other than the Access Easement granted in Paragraph 2, this Agreement may be terminated unilaterally by Crossings, effective ten (10) days after the date Crossings gives Soskin notice of the occurrence of any of the following events: 22.1. Default. If Soskin fails to cure an event of default within thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice of such default. 22.2. Cessation of Operations. If all retail and/or commercial operations on the Soskin Tract cease for twelve (12) consecutive months. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Paragraph, Crossings shall record a Declaration of Termination in the office of the recorder of Carver County, Minnesota, and the Parties shall cooperate in executing any further documents or instruments that may be necessary or appropriate to evidence such termination. 23. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by, and only by, a written agreement signed by all of the then record fee simple owners of the Crossings Tract and the Soskin Tract and consented to by the mortgagee(s) of each Tract, including but not limited to Soskin, and shall be effective only when recorded in the office of the recorder of Carver County, Minnesota. Each Party and any mortgagees may consider, approve or disapprove any proposed amendment to this Agreement in its sole and absolute discretion without regard to reasonableness or timeliness. 24. Limitation Regarding Soskin and Soskin Mortgage. Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement is subordinate to the Soskin Mortgage for all purposes other than Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 (subject to the further provisions of this Paragraph). If Soskin or his heirs, devisees, successors, assigns, transferees or grantees ever (i) foreclose the Soskin Mortgage, or (ii) receive a deed in lieu of foreclosure of the Soskin Mortgage, and Soskin or his heirs, devisees, successors, assigns, transferees or grantees (whether succeeding to or receiving Soskin's interest as mortgagee under the Soskin Mortgage or as fee owner of the Soskin Tract after foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure of the Soskin Mortgage) (collectively, the "New Owner"), then the New Owner shall be responsible for 15% of the cost of maintaining the Easement Area which cost is attributable to the time period during which the New Owner owns the Soskin Tract. The New Owner shall pay to Crossings such costs within 30 days of receipt by the New Owner of any invoice. Maintenance shall include, without limitation, black top maintenance, seal coating, snow removal and other routine and customary maintenance. 160~ 101.04 8 \ 25. Counterparts. The parties hereto may sign this Agreement in counterparts and, at such time as all parties have signed the counterparts, it shall be effective as though all had signed one document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 7 & 41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, By PBK Investments Inc., Its General Partner ~4~ By (I~m.~ Arnold M. Soskin \ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF J/~/,;. I ) ) ss: ) The fOre~g instrument wa~oWledged before me this -7''; day of December, 1997, by f},,'4,.. '!f~/ , the 4~~.1- of PBK Investments Inc., a Mmnesota corporatiOn and general partner of 7 & 41 Crossings Center Limi~<! Partnership, a Minne.sota limited pa,!n.~r.~~~,~~.~eh~I(9f.\1J>~rship. >>7 /1 ......:~~....~;;-;~Z;L~ . I/({t / ,.. "'~ NOTARY PUBlIC...~SOTA I ~ ;; ..' IIJCoatliuiOlElpiJ.JIll.S1." Notary Public . . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ~/~ ) ) ss: ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ?~ day of December, 1997, by A..r~~~~&~:.~?:~i~~f\N&U&U&Uu". '//~0 .--.n....nnA.~~~RT.~~.~~~~... /~ 6~4rL_._.- ._ I . NOTARY PUBlIC.t.tlNNESOTA I - . iii ...--, . E' J 1 _ Notary Pubhc r _SIlOII lptr. aII.!,_ . . 9 1604101.04 ~.-.-.- ---- EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Lot 2, Block 1, SEVEN FORTY ONE CROSSING which lies easterly and northerly of the following described "Line 1" and which lies southwesterly of the following described "Line 2:" "Line 1" is described as beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, SEVEN FORTY ONE CROSSING; thence South 0 degrees 17 minutes 22 seconds West, on an assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 1 and its southerly extension, a distance of 223.35 feet; thence South 89 degrees 42 minutes 38 seconds East, a distance of 171.00 feet; thence South 10 degrees 04 minutes 39 seconds East, a distance of 200.78 feet; thence South 74 degrees 06 minutes 34 seconds East, a distance. of 56.37 feet to a point on the east line of said Lot 2, Block I distant 247.69 feet south of the southeast corner of Lot 3, Block I and said line there terminating. "Line 2" is described as beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 3, Block 1 distant 48.00 feet west of the southeast corner; thence southeasterly to a point on the east line of Lot 2, Block 1 distant 164.69 feet south of the southeast corner of Lot 3, Block 1 and said line there terminating. 1604101.04 ...IJc,. "'-~lll/C.f:D r'\QDIFIGATICA'-Is"" . ::r~~~~;:. .~ /~ -- N ~7..4Z.'5,..L .......4 is' -\ '''-- -.....-- .. r_ . .. . : I.f-~:~~j:~o:~_n ~;~;:~!~ I I "'~rpOl-~ \'r~--~==".';1 ~ ~e (f'Y) I. II I ~ =p- :.s.f:"'1/I>1 .. I, 'I 0- 'II 111_ II II', ~I I :,l:"IJ~. dr-.:.I:' II 1 ~'-r- il: .-;i1..IL.vqJG11 . \\~ \\ 1 1\' It ,Ib~---,,----;~ . I rr--- . , " :~I . " 1. i~ ,,'~ ~.o " ~ ..::r- /- :1 ::r: -=.oR ~p"" U,. "L.~"'" OF 1 b..lt'~ f" ,In.,..! \Si~~2 =;"~t ~;'= " '" r-Jc>re."'- : T'1'rlCAL. ~QFIttJC:, J.JPT~ ..c.;,..I':;'F.L1 ~rr-:. jIAI'JI)ICAf"f'f"P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION VVednesday,August5,1998 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 City Center Drive L--------. /;1 II I" SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Video Update APPLICANT: KKE Architects LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Seven-Forty One Crossing Cente NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, KKE Architects, is requesting site plan approval for a 8,249.5 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building with the major tenant being Video Update on Lot 1, Block 1, Seven and Forty-One Crossing in the southwest corner of the intersection of Highways 7 and 41. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 23, 1998. , -- I ~ /\ I 1'c--":,,~1, /I'~ \ t,,; /..i ,; .-"1 Vi (' -- ",.' V .A I .... ~.., ... ' \ I -" ./ I I '" '\\ .' \.~/ BARBARA PIKE 6421 ORIOLE AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JAN REED 2461 WEST 64TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARJORIE/C.E. WOOSLEY JR 2511 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 SUPER AMERICA 4366 PO BOX 14004 LEXINGTON, KY 40512 RICK G BATESON 6440 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 7-41 PARTNERSHIP 5500 WAYZATA BLVD., SUITE 620 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 JODY B. MAJERES 6450 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 AGNES ANDERSON 6470 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 DALE & KELLY HANCE 6480 ORIOLE AVE EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 GARY REED 2461 WEST 64TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOANNE & SHAWN KILLIAN 2449 WEST 64TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 NANCY JO PERKINS 2448 WEST 64TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ROR INC 2461 WEST 64TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 1 DO-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 23. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 24. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 25. A 3D-foot wide strip ofland shall be dedicated or deeded to the City over Outlot B for future driveway access to the property to the north." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: ... that's more of a side discussion and I think they'd be happy. . . Conrad: Do we have the mpiling list of where we sent notification? Al-laff: I don't have it in the file but I will have it for City Council. Conrad: We always have that... Peterson: '" Burton moved, Brooks seconded to recommend approval of Vacation of a portion of a utility and drainage easement located on Lot 9, Block 1, Stone Creek 6th Addition, as shown in the plans dated received June 22, 1998, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a legal description of the Utility and Drainage easement proposed to be vacated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 8.249.5 SQ. FT. MUL TI- TENANT RETAIL BUILDING WITH THE MAJOR TENANT BEING VIDEO UPDATE ON LOT 1. BLOCK 1. SEVEN 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 AND FORTY-ONE CROSSING IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 7 AND 41. KKE ARCHITECTS. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Could you spend a little bit of time, I've got to rewind my memory. We've been here before. Al-Jaff: yes. Peterson: ... were then and how it compares to now... AI-Jaff: Sure. This application appeared before you on July 14 of 1997. Basically it was a very similar application to this one. The only problem was access to the site. The applicant, the previous applicant did not have a cross access easement to enter the site. Eventually what happened, the owner of the shopping center purchased Lot I and granted an easement to this parcel and carne back with a new plan. We felt there were enough changes in the applicant where it should re-appear before the Planning Commission and that's why it's before you today. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm wondering if you could point out in detail where the neon, where you'd like neon and where neon is not to be? AI-Jaff: Okay. This is the north elevation... Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Sharmin, on page 2. Just a clarification. The second to the last paragraph. It says staff is recommending the applicant reduce the width of the service lane located to the west by 4 feet. .. This will permit the drive aisle to be, the drive aisle in the parking lot to be widened to 24. And then four sentences up it says the ordinance requires 26. So are they shooting for 26 or 24? Hempel: 26. Conrad: For me to get a perspective on the neon, you're eliminating, you're recommending the stripes not go. AI-Jaff: Over the brick. Conrad: On the, on any elevation? AI-Jaff: Correct. On the north and east elevation. Just keep it around the stucco entrance. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Conrad: And the reason for that is? AI-Jaff: Excessive signage. We're viewing the neon as an extension of the sign because it is one of the trademarks for Video Update. Peterson: Questions of staff? Burton: Do you know if the city attorney has reviewed the operation and easement agreement that the applicant has submitted? AI-Jaff: No, not yet. Burton: AI-Jaff: Yes it will when we record the site plan agreement, the city attorney would have to review everything. Peterson: Other questions? Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Ron Krank: Good evening. My name is Ron Krank. I'm with KKE Architects. I'm here representing the property owner. Staff has done a very thorough job as you can tell from the report in going through every aspect of the plan. And I'm not going to go through much of it in very much detail except to maybe tell you how we're going to accommodate those elements that we can and are concerned with those that we think are issues. I think I'd like to start with a plan. The way this site is laid out, we have Highway 7 to the north of the property and the existing shopping center is back in this area. The proposed building, which is really 8,100 square feet. It's 90 x 90...staff, if anybody measured this probably took this entrance to be actually part of the building. Actually it's just pilasters against the building so it's 8,100 square feet. And as such requiring 41 parking stalls. I think when we came in originally it was proposed, the property... square feet. That's probably where the parking requirements took place. But I tell you that because we really don't have too many issues with, most the things that are being proposed on the plan, is being proposed is two, 24 foot aisles be increased to 26 feet and we propose to accommodate that by taking 4 feet off of this drive aisle. Reduce it to 20 feet. And secondly, staff is proposing that we increase this 5 foot green area from the property line in to 15 feet. We have problems with 15. I believe the ordinance is 10. We can accommodate the 10 by taking another 5 feet out of this drive aisle so it winds up being a 15 feet and then we'd make it one way around the building. We like this for a couple reasons. One is there will probably be a.. . entrances on this site. And secondly, when customers park in this area, if they wind up backing this way for them to get out. So we believe we can accommodate that and these changes fairly easily but we do have an issue making this 5 foot wider than the ordinance. The ordinance evidently also requires a 15 foot setback from the south property line. We have an excess dimension here, in this whole area so we can take another 10 feet and move forward and still meet the 26 foot ordinance.. .and still get a sidewalk to work because this is straight in that area. So those seem to work well. The only issue we really have pertains primarily to traffic concerns that have been suggested with regards to entrances on the south side of the site. This is a small 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 shopping center. It's only 28,000 square feet of area. Just a few shops over here. Excellent sight lines throughout and we just feel it just makes a lot more sense to be able to drive from this center directly and find a space or here rather than coming around and going in and trying to get out. It just seems to flow easier. If this was a Wal-Mart or a Target or a big center where you've got a lot of traffic going back and forth, it would probably be an issue. But frankly given the fact this is wide open and a lot of parking out front, great visibility, our preference would be to.. .so on the site plan really that's about all we have. With regard to the exterior of the building, we really started the architecture by looking at the existing building, which is a blend of brick and unpainted concrete block. It also has anodize aluminum.. . store front and then there's some red out around the columns and they used also the.. .some pre-finished metal awnings and then it looks like they used bar joist, standard metal bar joists to support on the outside. What we want to do is provide a very clean, simple building. Not too fussy because it is a small building but we wanted to call attention to the users and do it in what we thought was a very dignified manner. This building being a different proportion, we've raised it up higher so it's not just a little squat building. The existing center is 15 feet to the top of the roof. We're proposing to raise this to 18 feet. The windows in the existing center are 7 feet high, lining up with the doors. Proposing you go to 10 feet and then we're proposing that the building be all brick except for the gray unfinished rock face block at the base and then also we had two thoughts. One was either a drivit or stucco like material at the entry or the pre-finished, or the concrete block. We had indicated here that the concrete masonry units, our current thinking we'd probably do it in a drivit. Get a little more strength and call a lot more attention to the building. And then what we're doing to accentuate the entrances is creating double pilaster on both sides. We're taking some of the idea that truss system, the existing style. We're reducing it down in scale so that it has a little better proportion as it would relate to this building and then we're keeping this as a detail on top which you can see through. On the existing building they used another material behind it. It's sort ofa translucent material and I don't think it's as successful as frankly being able to see right through it. So what we're proposing is, this would be the north elevation. The front of Video Update. Glass on both sides. We're proposing the double band of neon on either side which frankly we think we need to give it a little more character and scale to it. It's a small building and with these two lines of neon in those areas that Sharmin pointed out, we felt that was really essential in tying it all together. Secondly as we wrap around on the glass we thought it made sense to do just as we did in the front here, accentuate the glass portion of the east elevation with the two bands of neon. And then finally we decided since this space adjacent to the Video Update facing easterly will no longer be a retail tenant but it will be the owner of the building... We didn't need an awning. We didn't need anything to write or call attention to it so we're just going to have signage on the fronL It will meet the ordinance. We felt it wasn't necessary to get the canopy.. .so then we took it off from the south of the elevation as well. So in essence we are blending in with the existing center but I think we're doing a little different job let's say in terms of proportions, height, and working with some stronger detail, strong proportions rather than trying to get lots of things happening. We do have some photographs of the existing center if you like. I can share that with you... Peterson: Questions of the applicant. Conrad: Chairman, what do you see going in the second part of the building? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Ron Krank: It's going to be office. It's going to be offices for the building owner. Conrad: South elevation is fairly bland and. Ron Krank: In the future there's going to be another building there. Office building... back here, you might remember on our plans, south of this building there's an enclosure, a brick enclosure for the trash. So there's other walls.. . sticking out. The opening of the trash will be.. .but eventually there's going to be another structure here. Conrad: Another building. Ron Krank: Correct. Peterson: More questions? Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please to open it. Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Richard Green: My name is Richard Green. I'm here to represent the retailer, Video Update. An address is 1424 County Road 9 in Dennison, Minnesota. Video Update is currently a tenant in the center behind. My main point I'll address is to the neon. That is a characteristic that wherever possible is repeated by Video Update in it's elevations. Our retail business is that of entertainment. We think the neon is consistent with entertainment retail, of theaters and video users. The existing store has across it's entire front the same planned double band of 15 millimeter neon tubing. We have here two presentations. We've got the north elevation. That's a presentation to Highway 7. It is the strongest characteristic I think on the building. The east elevation though, with that additional wrap of neon and signage is probably the most important to us as a tenant because the majority of the traffic entering the center does so off of TH 41 with the right-in only on Highway 7. The majority of the traffic entering and trying to identify the occupant of the building has to do so across the parking lot at this point so for us we think both to show the consistency of the wrap in the two elevations, the two presentations, and the distance that we are trying to get some identification from a customer moving in a car, that would be important to have that wrap of neon and the signs on the two elevations. So any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Peterson: Maybe back to the architect. If your most important visual is from TH 41, why wouldn't the building have been oriented towards TH 41 than TH 7 then? Ron Krank: Well, we've looked at these plans very carefully and really it's a good question because we've looked at whether it's the east entrance or the north face of the building that we 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 really wanted to make as an entrance and you see we've got parking in front on the north face. There will be traffic coming in there. Slipping in. There's a lot of traffic that goes by that we want them to know we're there. The traffic is going to enter the site and use the site as it's true, will be coming off of TH 41. So from that standpoint we do want the center identified but just visually, knowing they're there and recalling the Video Update store, it's just good advertising. So that's why we did that. Got that front face but Rick is right, the bulk of the traffic does come in off ofTH 41 and we obviously want them to see it and know it's there. Frankly the existing building has a lot going on, as you see here. Just a lot of different ideas and details and it's got 3 or 4 layers of different things. We think by the simplicity of the building with some attention to the entrances and the neon, we can really make a better statement so less is more in this case. But the neon is an essential element. It does call attention to it and so that's why we felt by reducing it to just at the window, it would be in effect of compromise to staffs concern about the magnitude of it. Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing please. Sidney moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Ladd. Your thoughts on this one. Conrad: Yeah, I'm okay. I think they're making the changes per the staff report. It's okay with me. I really don't, I don't have a problem with the neon. This is supposed to be a fun type of building. If there's an ordinance restriction to it, then word excessive is key here. I wouldn't do this if! thought it was breaking an ordinance but I really don't have a problem with... The other, you know I have to go with staff on almost all the other issues. Peterson: Well, if there is a second building that goes in there, .,. we won't have the neon. ...if another one goes in... try to integrate that in with the building with neon. Conrad: You know I don't know. I can't forecast that. I know what's fun and a video store is fun and I don't need to make it boring. Again, ifthere's an ordinance that says don't do this, I will, I'll stick by that ordinance. Staff is pretty good at interpreting what we have sensitive to our direction and City Council. In this particular case I don't want to strip out the fun things. Obviously visibility is important. That's what they want and if! thought it was gross, I'd vote it down. I just don't feel that so. Peterson: Sharmin... Al-Jaff: It says logos should constitute no more than 15% of the sign area. Is this a logo? That becomes a question. And I haven't figured out the exact area of the neon lights but my guess is that it would exceed 15%. But is it a logo? I mean that would become the question truly. Peterson: Okay. Alyson. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Brooks: I think it's a reasonable project. Although I would disagree with Ladd on the neon. To me it looks like a generic Video Update building. I don't consider Video Update building's fun. It just looks like Video Update architecture to me. Fairly generic. But it is what it is. And I think that it's sort of, sort of says it purpose all by itself with a big Video Update sign and I don't think neon around the back and the side is going to make a real big difference to consumers on whether they're going to drive to the video store. Once they know it's there, people will either go or they'll be driving by and say hey, let's stop at Video Update. The extra neon to make it extra fun isn't going to make the difference so I say, the project's great. Let's go with the project. All the staff recommendations and not do the extra neon. Peterson: Matt. Burton: Well the two that strike me are the neon also and the southeast driveway entrance and I think the neon is appropriate for this type of building and I think I'd be in favor of deleting the sentence in the recommendation.. . swayed on that on two ways. One is it's on a highway and two, it's the existing Video Update there has it already and, the neon band... On this driveway one, I guess I understand the applicant's concern and I guess... talk with staff and keep working on that issue.. .and perhaps see if they can get, otherwise I agree with all the staffs recommendations except for the neon. Peterson: LuAIID. Sidney: I generally don't have any problems with the application. Excellent staff report. Very thorough as always. I guess the neon issue I was thinking well maybe not but at this point I guess I would be in favor of having the neon. I'm thinking that is it any more or less than what SuperAmerica looks like because that would be heavily lighted in the evenings as well as it has bands of red along the white roofline as well. I guess I don't really have a problem with the neon and would be in favor of deleting that as Matt said. Condition. Peterson: My only two comments are the neon and... I would be, I would support staffs position on the neon only because I'm thinking ahead about that secondary building and I think it would be better if the building would not have a neon on all the sides just seemingly being able to integrate a future building more easily. Dave, looking at that entrance, I mean as we looked at it, having it open versus closed, it seems more logical to have it open to me. What am I missing? I mean what was the rationale for having just one? Hempel: Well the existing curb radius out there provide smooth transition. It's a good radius for turning vehicles. Granted it's a right in only off of Highway 7 so truck traffic most likely will access through off Highway 41. To give you an idea of what it would be like is if you turned into Market Square from Market Boulevard, first entrance into Wendy's. It's a continuous, almost 270 degree turn as you're going around. Cars coming behind, there is maybe some concern for rear end collisions. Again, the main access would be from TH 41. I do agree with their. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Peterson: But that though, wouldn't that be a compelling reason to open up the parking lot more? Hempel: A more open parking lot you find a little excessive speeding through the parking lots. Pedestrian safety is a concern if you do have that Market Square with all the islands in it. You don't like to drive it because you really can't go through it too fast and granted this probably is not as intense use as Market Square but just a plan I guess, a general site plan. Considerations to this we felt and additionally the previous site plan approval did not have that either. They had the one access off the south and one access off the east. Peterson: I think we had this same discussion a year ago too is. Hempel: Yeah, and that was I think a bigger building as well. We can certainly look at it a little bit closer with the applicant. I think the intent of the quick short trips to Video Update too, there's a peak period, afternoon, evenings that should maybe be looked at a little bit closer. Audience: The intent of the other building, if it ever gets built... Peterson: My point was more to the line of because there's neon on one building, I would suspect there wouldn't be neon on the next building. That there wouldn't be a natural flow of styles in buildings that are very close to each other. Audience: ... really a rare case of... when they put their sign on and that was about 4 years ago and... Brooks: Ifwe permit them to have the extra neon, do you see any chances of moving other people in here saying well you did it for them. Let them expand their commercial logo. I mean are we setting a precedent that we don't want to be setting? AI-Jaff: Yes you are. Peterson: With that discussion, can I have a motion please. Burton: Yes. I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #97-4 as shown on the site plan received July 9, 1998 subject to the conditions 1 through 20 and deleting the sentence in number 2 that begins, if a neon band. Well I'll just read the sentence. The sentence, if a neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, it shall be limited to the north entryway of Video Update. And also deleting item 20. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Yeah, I'd second that. Peterson: Any discussion? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 Conrad: Yes, I'd like to amend it however and instead of if. Instead of deleting the whole sentence, I probably shouldn't have seconded it but I can vote it down anyway. I'd rather have it worded that if a neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, and if it falls within city sign ordinance specifications. Then staffs still going to recommend against it. But I'd like to make, I don't want to break the ordinance and the deal is 15%. That's the deal and we can't, and if this takes us above it based on interpretation, we shouldn't do it. So that would be, you know I'd like you to reconsider or at least amend. Burton: I'll amend my motion to do that. Incorporate... Peterson: It's a friendly amendment so we can move ahead... Is there a second? There was a second. Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #97-4 as shown on the site plan received July 9, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall comply with the ordinance requirements. Brick shall be used on the base of the ground low profile sign if a sign was erected. If a neon band was incorporated onto the exterior of the building, and if it falls within city sign ordinance specifications, it shall be limited to the north entryway of Video Update. No signage will be permitted along the southern elevation. 3. Ornamentals planted along highway 7 should be salt tolerant. Replace crabapples with Japanese tree lilac or other such salt tolerant species. 4. Increase under story plantings in buffer yard to 6 trees. 5. Increase all parking lot islands and peninsulas to 10' in width. 6. Install tree protection fencing around existing vegetation on the west side of the property prior to construction. 7. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 8. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Install a P.LV. (post indicator valve). Valve location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 5, 1998 9. The applicant shall provide details on material colors used on the building for review and approval. 10. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Lighting Plans shall include photometries, wattage, treatment for glare, etc. 11. Building Official's conditions: a. Meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. 12. At time of building permit issuance, the site will be subject to the appropriate number of sewer and water hookup charges based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Services Commission. 13. The applicant shall intensify the landscaping plan along the westerly slope to restore the existing buffer to the original condition or better. 14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event to the city engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. The site plan shall be revised to include the following: a) The radius on the north/south drive aisle in the southeasterly comer shall remain at 20 feet, b) The parking lot and drive aisles shall be redesigned in accordance with City Code 20-1118, c) Provide minimum 10 foot landscape median between parking lot and north/south drive aisle from Trunk Highway 7, d) Delete southeasterly driveway entrance from existing parking lot, e) Erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. Prepare a traffic signage plan for review and approval by staff. 17. Recalculate impervious surface percentage. 18. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. 19. The building setback along the southern property line shall be increased to 15 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OUTLOT D (0.7 ACRES). SPRINGFIELD ADDITION. INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON SUNNYVALE DRIVE. LUNDGREN BROS. 25