CAS-21_CVS/PHARMACY (5)0 0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF M]NNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Todd Gerhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that he is and was on June 3,
2004, the duly qualified and acting City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on
said date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
CVS/pharmacy — Planning Case No. 04-21 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by
sending a notice addressed to such owner, and depositing the notices addressed to all such
owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses
of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver
County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _Tk day of a � 2004.
Notary�Mlic
gAp1m\2004 pl�ing �es\04-21 - cvs ph�cy spr & var\04-21 affidavitd�
KIM T. MEUVVISSEN
Notary Public - Minnesota
CARVER COUNTY
my commLssion Expires 1/311M
BCANNED
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, June 15,2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Site Plan Approval for a 13,000 square -foot
commercial building with requests for a Parking Variance and
Proposal:
a Sign Variance on 1.9 acres zoned Planned Unit
Development - CVS/pharmacy
Planning File:
04-21
Applicant:
Bear Creek Capital, LLC, and Chanhassen Development, LLC
Property
Northeast corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
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 Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
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
I the project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Comments:
e-mail buenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Ifyouchooseto
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.
City Review Procedure;
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments. Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations,
Rezonings, comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within SDO feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application In writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting. staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Counc1l. The City Council may reverse, aff irm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except razonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its
status and schedong for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersonirepresentative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any Interested person(s).
• Bemuse the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
@SAD 2
§ i.Nlfl
g
I R_qZWgg.ffiH
319H. q
CD
CD
LOUIS C ABELA JANET K BEETY SUSAN K BLAIR
2163 BANEBERRY WAY W 7747 LADYSLIPPER LN 2030 WATERLEAF LN E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8336 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343
SUSAN M BOYLAN JUNE M CASEY HANG CHAN &
2010 WATERLEAF LN E 2137 BAN EBERRY WAY W CHEUKWAiCHONG
2201 BANEBERRY WAY W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8339
CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT LLC
ANNETTE M CIESZKOWSKI
CONVENIENCE STORE
1434 SALEM LN SW
2141 BANEBERRY WAY W
INVESTMENTS
ROCHESTER MN 55902-6646
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340
PO BOX 2107
LACROSSE WI 54602-2107
SCOTT D & ANDRINE M DOCKEN
RICHARD M & MARY V ERVASTI
DORIS FRENCH
7628 CONEFLOWER CRV S
643 BAY ST
2189 BANEBERRY WAY W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8356
SANTA MONICA CA 90405-1214
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340
ERIK J FRITZ &
JINA I KUESEL NANCY B GLADES SHAWNA M GRIEP
2167 BANEBERRY WAY W 2101 BANEBERRY WAY E 2197 BANEBERRY WAY W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8359 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340
PAUL C HANSEN MICHAEL J HJERMSTAD KATHLEEN W HOMES
2018 WATERLEAF LN E 2056 WATERLEAF LN W 2145 BANEBERRY WAY W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340
IND SCHOOL DIST 112 & J P'S LINKS INC -JOHN PRZYMUS
CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O PAT NEATON BARBARALJOHNSON
11 PEAVEY RD 601 CARLSON PKY 7751 LADYSLIPPER LN
CHASKA MN 55318-2321 #620 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8336
MINNETONKA MN 55305-5215
NATHAN R JOHNSON & KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO TOM J & LISA LAPKA
BRANDILYN E BAWEK 350 HWY 212 E 2014 WATERLEAF LN E
2193 BANEBERRY WAY W PO BOX 89 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340 CHASKA MN 55318-0089
CHRISTOPHER C LAPPI &
LINDSAY K LAPPI JANET I MARUSKA TARA A MATTSON
7728 BLUEBONNET BLVD 2175 BANEBERRY WAY W 7755 LADYSLIPPER LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8335 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8336
DEBORAH R MILLER SCOTT J & STACY D MISKA CONNIE L MUNSON
2022 WATERLEAF LN E 2062 WATERLEAF LN W 2068 WATERLEAF LN W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8342
E
E
MARY LOUISE REITMEIER HOLLY M RICKERT JOEL W ROBERTSON &
2159 BANEBERRY WAY W 2129 BANEBERRY WAY W JANENE A BROOKS
7731 CONEFLOWER CRV S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8358
ANN M RODNING
2026 WATERLEAF LN E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343
LAC H TRINH &
MUOI T NGU
2050 WATERLEAF LN W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8342
WALNUT GROVE VILLAS ASSN
C/O GITTLEMAN MGMT CORP
1801 79TH ST E
SUITE 21
BLOOMINGTON MN 55425-1230
MICHAEL A ROSE &
DEBORAH EVANS-ROSE
2069 BLUE SAGE LN W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8341
JENNY VAN AALSBURG
2171 BANEBERRY WAY W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340
JULIE D WAND
2133 BANEBERRY WAY W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340
TERRA L SAXE
7845 AUTUMN RIDGE AVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8451
WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS
ASSN
C/O GITTLEMAN MGMT CORP
1801 E 79TH ST
SUITE 21
BLOOMINGTON MN 55425-1230
BRADLEY J & JANETTE M WING
2155 BANEBERRY WAY W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8340
SHANNON LINDSAY ZUBERT RICH SLAGLE G:\PLAN\2004 Planning Cases\04-21 -
7743 LADYSLIPPER LN 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CVS Pharmacy SPR & Var\PH Notice
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8336 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Labels.doc
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-21
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 15,2004, at
7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is
to consider a Request for Site Plan
Approval for a 13,000 square-firod
wromem build' with nests far
a . ceandaSignV
on 1.9 a res zoned Planned Unit
Development located at the northeast
corner of Highway 5 and Galpin
Boulevard, Bear Creek Capital, LLC,
and Chanhassen Development, LLC,
CVS/pharmacy.
A Plan showing the location of the
Proposal is available for public review
at city Hall during regular business
hours. All interested persons are
invited to attend this public hearing
andexPresstheiropinionswithrespect
to this proposal.
Robert
Generous, Senior Planner
Email:
bggngrous(&,ci,chaUhMsen.mn.0
Phone: 952-227-
1131
(Published in the Chanhassen
Villager on Thursday June 3, 2004
No. 4198) 1
0 0
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
(A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33 IA.02, 33 IA.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended.
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. Y//,Y
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghijklninopqrstuvwxyz
Q6�� A 4q,,,_)
Laurie A. Hartmann
Subscribed and sworn before me on
this J�_day of 2004
NotaryPublic
------------
LGWEN M. RADUENZ
NOTARYPUBLIC MINNESOTA
0 MyC�ExpraIan.31,2DDS
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paidby commercial users forcomparable space. ... $22.00 per column inch
Ma;timurn rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $22.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $10.85 per column inch
SCAWM
a 0
The contents of this file
have been scanned.
Do not add anything to
it unless it has been
scanned.
City Council Meeting Ay 12, 2004
preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff,
before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
4. All structures shall maintain a 40 -foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
5. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water
calculations shall be submitted to staff to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a
result of the proposed development. The applicant may work with the Arboretum
to ensure their concerns are addressed.
6. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Typp of S12M Time (Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.)
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such
as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage
ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
8. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping
and street sweeping as -needed.
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, e.g. Mffinehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering) and Army
Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH REQUESTS FOR A PARKING SETBACK
NO. 04-21.
22
ac"I"
I City Council Meeting —ey 12,2004 9
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. The applicant, Bear Creek
Capital is proposing a pharmacy convenience store at the comer of Highway 5 and
Galpin Boulevard. This site is directly in front of the Kwik Trip property. If you noticed
the property line, they're cantilevered on Highway 5. That is part of the reason for the
request for the setback variance. This line is in place where they comply with the design
standards for setback for the parking lot. At this point they measure over here, they're 30
some feet off. As part of their submittal staff did recommend to the applicant that they
orient their building so that the doorway was facing Highway 5. This necessitates the rest
of the site layout. All the parking people want to be close to an entrance for retail uses.
This is actually their second submittal. They have revised the drive thru area on the north
side. Originally they had the traffic connecting to the north east driveway point but
Planning Commission felt that this created additional conflicts there and so the applicant
came in and segregated that. We believe that this site and their proposal works well and
will be a good addition to the community. We are recommending approval of the site
plan with the variance for the parking setback. They did have a second variance to
increase the pylon sign to I believe it was 24 feet. As part of the design standards they
approved a 15 foot pylon on the site that was to be shared by the two users. And then
each site would get their individual monument signage. They have revised their
monument sign location to meet, well actually it exceeds their setback. They've also
revised the architectural detailing on the building to comply with all requirements of the
ordinance. However staff believes they have sufficient visibility on that comer with the
existing signage. The building with the wall signage and the monument signage that
there's not a need to deviate for the pylon sign and we're recommending denial of that.
With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Bob, you talked about if the applicant were to turn their building
essentially 90 degrees from where it is now, that that would alleviate the setback
requirement. Is that what you were referring to?
Bob Generous: Yes, if they could reorient the building then they'd have the parking on
the north and the west side. Their drive tlim would be facing Highway 5. Or in that
comer.
Councilman Lundquist: The drive thru would be.
Mayor Furlong: Can you show us please?
Bob Generous: Basically they'd ... this building.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh, I thought it was 90 degrees the other way. I'm sorry.
Didn't you say the front door, where's the front door?
Bob Generous: The front entrance is right here going out to Galpin and 5.
23
City Council Meeting Ay 12, 2004 0
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so if that faces 5, and the drive thru is in the comer of
Galpin and Kwik Trip, right?
Bob Generous: Yes. Drive thru's up here. If you could flip it, they'd have their parking
up here and parking here. They just have this little area down on Highway 5 side. Or
this little area...
Councilman Peterson: But then you'd see the drive thru.
Bob Generous: Yes, Plus we want to have that sense of life facing the busy highway.
Councilman Peterson: So you're not recommending that they turn it around?
Bob Generous: No.
Councilman Labatt: You don't want them to flip...
Bob Generous: No. We want them to keep that orientation onto Highway 5.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, fair enough. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff? No?
Councilman Labatt: Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Ayotte: Want to put a median in?
Councilman Labatt: Can I? Just talking the drive thru real quick. What's the length and
what's the potential number of cars that will be stacked?
Bob Generous: They have stacking for 3 cars in each of the lanes on the north side.
Their traffic study showed that that was the maximum they saw in their drive thru in
other operations.
Councilman Labatt: Have you ever seen the Walgreen's on Blake Road and Highway 7?
Bob Generous: No.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Well I have. It's granted, obviously they have two stalls
here. Right?
Bob Generous: Two, yes. One is, the northerly one is just for dropping off the
prescription. The southerly one is where they pick up the medications. And it's limited
to only to prescriptions. They can't get anything else there.
on
City Council Meeting —sy 12, 2004 0
Councilman Peterson: No coffee?
Bob Generous: No coffee.
Councilman Peterson: Unless it's prescription.
Councilman Labatt: My only question is the number of cars that can potentially be
stacked there and what happens with it exceeds 3 and do they, don't get me wrong. I'm
not opposed to this project or the drive thru. I just want to make sure that we don't
create.
Bob Generous: Then they would potentially back out into that easterly drive aisle.
However, that's a secondary access. Most people are going to come in the northwest
comer. Where actually the Planning Commission wanted to see if there were ways to get
more people to go up that way. But we don't know.
Councilman Labatt: The sign? Will it be a flasher? Free coffee.
Mayor Furlong: Bob, the flow for that drive thru, as we're looking at this picture, starts
at the right and flows towards the building and out the mid egress point there. If it's
going to fill up, it's going to fill up there. Either back below or back up into the private
drive off of Galpin.
Bob Generous: Yes. So we'll turn here or come up that way.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff on this one? No? Is there
anybody representing the applicant here this evening that would like to address the
council? This would be an opportunity. Sure.
Tim Baird: Tim Baird with Bear Creek Capital.
Mayor Furlong: If you could come up to the microphone, just so it's easier for the
recorder.
Tim Baird: Tim Baird with Bear Creek Capital and the only two things I really wanted to
point out was, we've been doing these for about 8 years now. We've done about 75 of
them and I can tell you that I've never seen more than 3 cars. I'd love to know there
were more but I've never seen more than 3 cars. That's one. Two, I think this
orientation really works out well and we've agreed to do some berming and that to really
shade that. And three, we only, the way that CVS does their truck delivery, they only
have one large truck a week and then they actually, that comes in after hours so they've
got that down pretty much to a science. It's just, you mentioned, I heard someone
mentioned, I don't know if it was Bob, the life concept. They really are big on that and
try not to overload a site so that was it.
25
City Council Meeting Ay 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions? No? Thank you Tim. If there are no
other questions for staff I'll bring it back to council for comment. Or representative from
Planning Commission, Commissioner Lillehaug, any comments or additional on this one?
Thank you. Bring it back to council for comments.
Councilman Ayotte: Looks good.
Councilman Peterson: I agree with staff 100 percent.
Councilman Labatt: I know my mother's excited about this place.
Councilman Lundquist: I can't believe Craig's going to approve a drive thru.
Mayor Furlong: I think a comment, and I'll commend staff on this, and it's with the
orientation. One of the improvements that we have here, and you mentioned the drug
store at 7 and Blake Road where that drive thru faces the intersection. You see these two
brick walls and it's the same thing with the Walgreen's at 5 and County 4. This is going
to look nice and people are going to know, it's going to be a great addition to our
residents in the western part.
Councilman Labatt: You bet it will.
Mayor Furlong: I think it's great so. So congratulations, thank you. Tim and others and
Planning Commission for working through the issues here. With that, we have, is there
any other discussion or comments? Very good, with that is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council approve site plan planning
case #04-21, plans prepared by Anderson Engineering dated May 5b, revised 5-13, 5-20,
and 6-24 in the packet with conditions 1 through 29.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Labatt: Conditions I through 29? Am I in the wrong one?
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: It starts on page 3.
Councilman Labatt: Oh, I was looking at the old one.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that the right one Bob?
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
P70!
City Council Meeting *y 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Did you second that Councilman Ayotte?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes I did.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. It's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded approval of Site Plan
approval of Planning Case # 04-21, plans prepared by Anderson Engineering of
Minnesota, LLC, dated May 5, 2004, revised 5-13-04, 5-20-04 and 6-24-04, with a
38 -foot variance from the parking setback requirement and a variance to permit
two rows of parking between the building and the road based on the attached
findings and recommendation and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The developer shall provide a bike rack. Additionally, the developer shall install
benches on both the lEghway 5 and Galpin Boulevard sides of the building.
The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. All sidewalks shall be provided with accessible ramps.
5. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are
submitted.
7. Utility plans: Cleanouts are required in the sanitary sewer system in accordance
with the Minnesota Plumbing Code.
8. Applicant shall plant 8 deciduous trees along Galpin Boulevard in order to meet
minimum requirements.
9. A 10-forit clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This
is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
10. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding the maximum allowable size of domestic water on a
combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention division Policy #36-1991.
OVA
City Council Meeting Ay 12, 2004
0
Il. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and
industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation
Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed.
12. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
13. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed.
14. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow -painted curbing will be required. Please
contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact sign locations and for exact curbing to
be painted yellow.
15. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water
calculations shall be submitted to verify that the existing storm water pond is sized
adequately for the proposed development.
16. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Typg of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.)
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such
as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage
ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
17. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping
and street sweeping as -needed.
18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Carver County, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
19. Show the location of the accessible ramps on the plans.
FM
City Council Meeting Ay 12, 2004
20. All final plans must be signed by a registered civil engineer.
21. Add all applicable 2004 City of Chanhassen detail plates to the plans.
22. On the Cirading Plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Show the location of the existing silt fence.
c. Show the existing topography of the site.
23. The retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer and a permit
from the Building Department must be obtained for its construction.
24. The City's type II silt fence must be used adjacent to the wetland on the east side of
the site. In addition, a 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be
included at the main access drive to the site.
25. The remaining assessment due payable to the City at the time of building pen -nit
application is $10,479. In addition, sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges
along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due at the time of building permit
issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hook-up charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary
sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The 2004 SAC fee is $1,425 per unit. The
hook-up charges and SAC fee are based on the number of SAC units assigned by
the Met Council.
26. Storm sewer sizing calculations will need to be submitted for review prior to
building permit approval.
27. Directional signage showing access to TH 5 and south Galpin Boulevard shall be
installed.
28. Revise the drive aisle width of the drive-thru exit from 16 to 20 feet.
29. Work with staff to increase the berming adjacent toTH 5 and Galpin Boulevard."
AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Also a request with regard to the sign variance.
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council deny the sign variance
based on the attached findings of fact and recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: And is there a second to that motion?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion?
29
City Council Meeting Ay 12, 2004
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council
deny the sign variance based on the attached findings of fact and recommendation.
AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Lundquist: Short, not really a presentation I guess. Just comments
regarding the July Yd and 4th festivities. One that myself and my family personally look
forward to. We always have a good time and just wanted to publicly thank the Rotary for
their efforts, the parade committee and all the volunteers and everything there. And our
public, our parks department that, especially scrambled on the P with all the rain and got
the lights up and all of the work that Todd Hoffman and Jerry and Corey put through so
that's a great event and it's hard to find anybody, even in the rain while I was out there,
that didn't have a good time. So I think something that the citizens really enjoy and
something that we don't find in the area anywhere around, anything like that at that time
of year so hats off and thank you to the groups that put in those efforts and donated their
time and money.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, well said. Other presentations? Comments. One thing I'd
like to share today at the Chanhassen Library, U.S. Senator Norm Coleman hosted a
Children's Health and Nutrition Surnmit. It was very well attended. There were
anywhere from 60 to 75 people that came and attended. There was the panel discussion
included Dr. Ellen Goldbloom who's the President and CEO of Children's Hospitals and
Clinics here in the Twin Cities. They were joined by the Undersecretary of the USDA
for Food and Nutrition and Consumer Services, Eric Boast who flew in from Washington
today to be here. Also by Dr. Edward Thompson who's Deputy Director of the Public
Health and Services for the Center of Disease Control and Prevention came up from
Atlanta. There were 6 other panelists as well from the Twin Cities area. It was a great
discussion. It was very interesting. They talked about nutrition, physical activity and the
human and financial costs of lack of good nutrition and physical activity for children and
really where the issues were and the answer was, there is no silver bullet. While it is a
real issue, ultimately it's going to be the parents, schools, city and county govemments
and state and federal governments working together on different issues to do that so, it
was a nice way to showcase the Chanhassen Library. To be a part of that. There were a
number of people who came from around the area, as well as across the country to talk
about these issues here in our town so one, I'd like to thank Justin Miller from the city
staff who worked to help organize the room and make sure it went off without a hitch,
which it did so Justin, thank you very much for that, but it was a very nice event. I know
Channel 4 and Channel 5 both had camera crews there today so whether or not they'll
show this evening, I don't know but it was a nice event.
Councilman Lundquist: Did they get library cards?
Mayor Furlong: Not to my knowledge.
30
0 &
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMSSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 6,2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Kurt
Papke and Craig Claybaugh
MIEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjonihom
STAFT PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob
Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, CVS/PHARMACY, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-21.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Jaster
Bill Tippmann
3052 Rhode Island Avenue, St. Louis Park
9549 Montomary Road, Cincinnati, OH
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff Any questions from staff? Steve.
Lillehaug: Of course I have a few.
Sacchet: Turn the mic on.
Lillehaug: I have questions with a couple items here. One, landscape entry.
Preservation. I looked at the previous schedule and I guess I'm curious why the
requirements have changed so much when really the parameters of the lot or building
haven't changed significantly.
Generous: I discussed that with Jill. I had that same question and she believes what she
did is pulled in the table and didn't, thought she changed the numbers and hadn't changed
them. Put in the proposed has changed significantly too so.
Planning Commission Ating — July 6, 2004 &
Lillehaug: Okay. And would you please comment on the fact, sometimes more
information is worst I guess because then it gives me more to look at. But on their memo
that the developer provided to us. On page 2 of their findings they indicated that the ITE
code has an average trip generation to use for design of 8.62 trips per 1,000 square feet.
And what they actually found with the Walgreen's stores is about double that. 15.2. A
little bit less than double that. So with their trip generation being double, does that mean
that they should be providing, would that be a direct correlation of parking? Would that
mean that even though they're meeting their requirements of parking, would staff concur
that maybe we need to look at parking a little more since their trips are doubling? And
their parking was just a little above what we required. Do you have any concerns with
that?
Generous: I don't. I wonder if that might be a better question for the applicant. We
believe that they have sufficient parking for a retail operation. Part of those numbers also
includes the drive thru traffic which won't be parking. It will just be driving through the
lots. They're comfortable. They're over the minimum that we have. Exceed what our
requirements are.
Lillehaug: Okay. Page 2 of your report, you indicate quote, moving this access even
further, I should tell you where I'm at here. It's about the fifth paragraph down and it's
referring to the northwest driveway onto the site off of the private road. You indicate
moving this access even farther to the east could begin to cause conflicts with traffic
entering, exiting the existing Kwik Trip site to the north. Do you and does engineering
agree with that statement?
Saam: Yes. I agree with it. I wrote it so.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: That was easy.
Saam: Do you understand what I'm saying there? Getting it closer to that existing Kwik
Trip access, you'll have conflicting movements in close proximity to each other.
Lillehaug: I guess I totally disagree with it. I know this ain't a question but since we're
talking about it, if you're, I know it's not a road but if your road, you want to line your
intersections up. It makes sense so you don't have staggered intersections. It's a lot
safer. Likewise in a parking lot, you'd line your drive aisles up. You don't want
staggered intersections so I don't understand the reasoning behind that because my
opinion is is that you want to line them driveways up. So I don't know if you have
anything further to add.
Saam: Yeah, no I totally agree with you Commissioner Ullehaug. What I was getting at
is if you couldn't line them up, then to have them in close proximity but have them
staggered is worst than getting them separated where motorists can have some time to
react to people turning out from another access. That's what I was trying to get at.
2
Planning Commission Wing — July 6, 2004 9
Sacchet: Makes sense.
Lillehaug: One other question then I'm done. The last paragraph on the same page. You
indicate that there's better opportunity for more green space on the north side of the
building. When I look at other developments, I mean Village on the Ponds, and maybe
it's not a good comparison but I guess I don't see the need to have additional green space
on the north compared with more green space on the south. I'd prefer to have the green
space on the west and south. Would staff, I mean obviously you're stating your opinion
here but do you still concur with what you're saying there? That we do want to provide
more green space on the north of that building?
Generous: We like that they're providing more green space in this rather than a drive
thm aisle all the way through. If we had our druthers, yes but then your question, back to
is there sufficient parking on site and you have to balance all that. Had we, were we able
to flip this building and put the entrance to the northwest, we could shift the building over
to the east and you know get all that green on the perimeter but then we defeat the city's
purpose of trying to bring life out to the public street.
Lillehaug: Did you discuss with the developer about getting rid of that drive aisle on the
north? Well I know they did partly but you know making one way traffic through the site
so they could shift that building to the north and provide the appropriate parking setbacks
which they still need a variance for. I mean it doesn't look to me like they addressed any
of that. I mean they kind of did.
Generous: No they didn't. Except they were going with their function for their
operation. They have the entrance and all kitty comer from that is where they have their
pharmacy facilities and drive thru. Trying to accommodate that.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's it for me. Thanks.
Sacchet: No questions Dan?
Keefe: I have one question. It's in regards to traffic exiting the site and then wanting to
go down to Highway 5 and going south on Galpin. At least on the signage piece, I didn't
see any signs that should say go east to go up to West 78 lb and then take a left. Is that
something that would be possible to add to the site or?
Saam: Yeah, that's our intent is to require, if it's not in here as a condition I apologize
but at the time of building permit to make sure that there's a sign saying Highway 5 this
way.
Keefe: Go east, okay. Good. That's it.
Sacchet: Okay. Craig, you have any questions?
N
Planning Commission sting — July 6, 2004 &
Claybaugh: Yes. Let's see here. Hopefully it hasn't been covered. Was there any data
available for the average service time. I know that they identified they had 3 cues in
conjunction with the drive thru service. Is there any data available for the average service
time?
Generous: I didn't request any of that. The applicant may have.
Claybaugh: I'll reserve that question for the applicant.
Sacchet: Okay. I don't have too much more questions. You know on the bottom of page
2 you're saying the only potential conflict point between the new drive thru location is
when traffic on the south parking lot is trying to go out and people coming in from the
north into this, okay. And so at this point the maximum stacking is 3 cars, right? Once
it's.
Generous: Without going into the driveway.
Sacchet: Without getting into the drive aisle. Okay. And based on the study that there is
never more than 3, they're accommodating what we need, right?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, that's all my questions. That's it for questions. Abight, with that I'd like
to invite the applicant to come forward. If you have anything to add in terms of where
we were last time. Where we are now. State your name and address for the record
please.
BillTippmann: Good evening again. My name is Bill Tippmarm. I'm Vice President of
Bear Creek Capital from Cincinnati, Ohio and would like to address any questions you
may have.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicant. Craig, you had one.
Claybaugh: ... question I asked previously of staff. The average service time of the drive
thru. You indicate 3 cues. They identified that there typically isn't more than 3
customers being serviced at the drive thru at any one time. They feel that's sufficient. I
was just curious what the average service time was.
Bill Tippinarm: I'll have to apologize. I'm a bit rusty on that study. It's been several
months since I've read it.
Claybaugh: I'll accept the best you can do.
Bill Tippmann: But I believe the logic was that they physically observed several CVS
stores in Chicago, if I'm not mistaken, as well as some Walgreen's here in Minneapolis,
or the Twin Cities area. And they observed, there were there to observe the length of
4
Planning CommissionAkting — July 6, 2004 0
cars, how many cars were sitting at the stacking at any point in time. The most they ever
observed was 3. 1 don't believe they got into how long it takes to serve...
Claybaugh: Okay, so that was the extent of the methodology they used.
Bill Tippmann: Yes.
Sacchet: Wasn't it last time I recall you point out that one of the outer drive thru is just to
drop off prescriptions so there is, it's almost like a mailbox. People don't really linger.
Bill Tippmann: Yes. Right. That's the way it functions. You drop off your prescription
in the tube and then you come back to the other window.
Sacchet: Would you drop it off and talk to the person?
Bill Tippmann: I guess you would have if you had any questions certainly. I think
there's a substantial number of people who use that window who have called in
previously, or the doctor has.
Sacchet: Specifically drop off at that point.
Bill Tippmann: Yes.
Sacchet: And then the pick-up, I guess what would help give a little framework.
Claybaugh: I was just trying to follow the methodology they used, if there was any
difference in services at this location over the study locations. Parallel to what
Commissioner Sacchet had just identified. Just wanted to understand the complete
methodology.
Bill Tippmann: The way that window functions, the only thing you can purchase there is
pharmaceuticals. You can't buy over the counter medication. You can't buy milk.
Sacchet: So you basically pick up what.
Bill Tippmann: Exactly, you pick up prescriptions.
Sacchet: Does that answer your question?
Claybaugh: Yes, that answers my question. Thanks.
Sacchet: Other questions from the applicant. Any other questions? Steve, go ahead.
Ullehaug: I assume you heard my question I asked staff before regarding parking. Trip
generation doubles. Are you okay with your parking on that site?
5
Planning Commission Oting — July 6, 2004 0
Bill Tippmann: We, as I believe I stated the last time we were here, we are a developer,
select developer for CVS. We do stores here in Nfinneapolis and in the
Cincinnati/Dayton area in Ohio. One, they are more restrictive. They want slightly more
parking typically than code will provide, and their number is in the 65 to 70 range. Well
we have 70 provided on this, so we're comfortable and CVS is comfortable.
Lillehaug: Okay. How about berming? I see the revised plans have taken into
consideration the revised contours out there, and grading. I guess my opinion is, is we
don't have much berming out there. The parking isn't totally screened from berming and
trees out there. I mean there's probably only a 1 to 2 foot berm inbetween the parking lot
and Trunk Highway 5. Is there, are you open to possibly providing more berming?
Bill Tippinann: Certainly. To the extent that it doesn't screen the building. The way
I've always heard this.
Lillehaug: The parking is I guess is what I'm.
Bill Tippmann: The way I've always heard, and I don't know whether there's any truth
in it or not but the methodology that most designers will use is to screen the fronts of
cars. The bumpers, the headlights, those kind of things. To the extent that the berms are,
or with shrubs on top are high enough to achieve that, that usually satisfies the design
intent. That's the way I've always heard it, and yes we are receptive to doing that.
Lillehaug: And could I guess you comment on the general revisions you made to the
overall circulation and why you didn't look at, trying to shift the building back to the
north and providing the adequate parking setback on the south.
Bill Tippmann: We actually produced plans that had the drive thru on the cast side of the
building, and when we looked at it in it's totality with the conflicts that it then generated
between the stacking for the pick-up window and the service area in the rear, we thought
this was a better balance. We thought this still achieved what the Planning Commission
was asking for last time and that is to provide a method for the people at the drive thm
window to exit the site without having to load the intersection any more at Galpin then it
needed to be. And in balance I think we just felt this was a better blend.
Lillehaug: I think that is all I have for now, thanks.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Bill Tippmann: Thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is not a public hearing. We took comments for that last time but I do
want to ask is anybody here to address this item? No, it doesn't look like it. So we'll
have it for discussion and comments. Commissioners. Any opinions? Things to add.
Over what we discussed last time.
Planning ConunissionAkting — July 6, 2004 0
Claybaugh: Nothing new to add.
Sacchet: Nothing new to add? Okay. Want to add something Steve?
Lillehaug: Comments I guess is I would still like to see more berming on the south. I
don't think we're quite high enough. I'm looking at the grades and I think we can do
better than what we're showing. There's plenty of footage inbetween the parking lot and
trunk highway 5 and I think we can get a berm a little bit higher than that wouldn't screen
the building but it would better screen the parking lot. And also on the Galpin side, I
guess I'm, the screening on that site is pretty inadequate. I mean we're, I know we talked
about it before but pretty much absent of the berm at all on that site and there is space
inbetween the parking lot on the west and the trail on the west that I think they could
provide somewhat of a berm anyways, as well as like staff has indicated at least
providing a minimum amount of canopy on the trees. And so I definitely concur with
staff on providing more canopy trees on that side. I guess looking at the site plan
revisions, they didn't push the building back to the north but I guess it's a better balance
than what we saw before in my opinion. I really don't like encroaching on the parking
setback on the south side. I think it's pretty important not to encroach in that setback.
But am I going to let that hold this up in my mind, I mean I think I'll let it go. As far as
support wise goes, since they do have a few extra parking stalls in there, somehow maybe
they could get rid of a couple parking stalls in the very southeast comer of the parking lot
so it provides less of an encroachment area. And I don't see that as a major factor in my
support on this but it's just an idea. Other than that, I'm in support of the application.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other comments?
Keefe: I think we definitely want to add, make sure the signage piece is in there in terms
of making sure the exit for getting onto 5 and going south on Galpin is added as a
condition.
Sacchet: I missed the last part -
Keefe: To make sure that we have signs in there to make sure that, exiting to south
Galpin and Mghway 5 are added to the site so that people going to the east.
Sacchet: Yep. Kurt, you have a comment?
Papke: I think it's kind of just getting to the berming issue. It looks like about a 3 foot
berm from what 1, you know from reading the plan. Plus there's the crab apple trees and
there's a fair number of trees out in the front there. I suspect the applicant wants some
visibility. He said, you know of the building they want to screen the cars. It looks like
they're achieving that so I guess I don't share your concern with the size of the berm. It
looks like a pretty good balance between the row of shrubs, right along the edge of the
parking lot, the crab apple trees. Nice trees. 3 to 4 foot berm. Doesn't look all that bad
to me.
7
Planning Commission Oting — July 6, 2004 0
Sacchet: Ahight, I don't have really much to add.
Lillehaug: Can I have my, maybe rebuttal comments.
Sacchet: Sure, rebuttal.
Lillehaug: When I look at my point of elevations I look on the southwest comer. It's
about 866, and then I look at the parking lot in that same area. It's about 865. And the
berm isn't much higher. It's all relative to where you're looking at so to me it's not much
of a berm and could I ask your comment on berming on the Galpin side. Does anybody
have any comments on that? I mean there's only 20-30 feet inbetween the sidewalk and
the parking lot. There's not much room to put a berm in there but at least some. I guess
overall I just see developments out there that yeah, they come in with a berm plan and
then when it actually gets built, there's no berm out there. So I would rather have more
shown in these plans so we at least get some berm out there. And that's all I have,
thanks.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Slagle: Commissioner Lillehaug, I'm trying to think on Kwik Trip, are there berms?
Lillehaug: I think there's a slight berm inbetween Galpin.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Does staff have an opinion on that?
Generous: I like berms.
Sacchet: You like berms?
Aanenson: Yeah, I think that's one of the goals that was mentioned by the applicant.
Certainly our goal to screen the parking lots and that's why we have done, we did the
Mghway 5 corridor study. Depending on when you certainly have the width on the front,
just as Mghway 5 and Galpin, that's something, I think that's where Jill was coming back
to say it's important that we add some additional canopy to get those different heights
and different types of trees. But certainly we'll take a look at that. At that narrow, you'd
have to certainly the irrigation and all, how we, or drip lines, that's all important to make
sure it lives and we get the right species in there. But it's to screen the lights when
people park their cars and the noise and some of that sort of thing too.
Sacchet: Maybe the balance is that we would have something that the applicant work
with staff. I don't think it's big enough of a deal to make a condition, and it's not like if
it would be a neighborhood next door, there'd be a real issue in bernfing and buffering
and all that but next to a major road, I don't think it's that crucial. Maybe that would be
the balance point. With that one. I don't really have much comments except I do want to
El
Planning Commission sting — July 6, 2004 0
acknowledge my appreciation that I think the applicant really did do due diligence in
taking our comments from last time we looked at this into consideration and I think it's a
significantly improved proposal in terms of the concerns we voiced last time so I want to
thank you for that. With that I'm willing to take a motion.
Claybaugh: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends site plan approval
of Planning Case # 04-21, plans prepared by Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC,
dated May 5, 2004, revised 5-13-04, 5-20-04 and 6-24-04, with a 38 -foot variance from
the parking setback requirement and a variance to permit two rows of parking between
the building and the road based on the attached findings and recommendation and subject
to the following conditions 1 through 26 and I guess I'd like to come back with respect to
the commissioners comments on directional signage out to Galpin and ffighway 5. You
indicated you thought that was in there. I didn't see it.
Saam: No, I apologize. It's not.
Claybaugh: So would add condition number 27 to address the directional signage.
Slagle: With no U turn.
Claybaugh: Directional signage and any appropriate restrictions.
Keefe: The U turn would be out on Galpin, right?
Slagle: The U turn is going away.
Saam: Well that's a county issue. We have talked with the county and they really don't
see a need for that right now so that's something we're going to have to, if we want to
push that continued to work with them on it so, I guess if we could not condition the U
turn one and just the directional at this point.
Claybaugh: Okay, with respect to with what was handed out just before the meeting
here, would that become an additional condition?
Aanenson: Yes.
Claybaugh: So that would be condition number 28. Do I need to read that through Kate?
Regarding condition for drive aisles as submitted by city staff dated July the 6"'. Do I
need to read that in entirety or not?
Aanenson: I just think for the record, just that the driveway access.
Sacchet: Yeah, just read it. Short.
Claybaugh: The minimum width per city code, this to address condition number 28.
Drive aisles. The minimum width per city code for one way traffic drive aisles within
Z
Planning Commission Sting — July 6,2004
business districts is 20 feet. As such the plans for CVS Pharmacy must be revised to
comply with the ordinance and increase the drive aisle width for the drive thru. exit from
16 to 20 feet. Sufficient? So that would be conditions 1 through 26. 27 addressed
directional signage. 28 addressed drive aisle widths.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion, we have a second. Are there any friendly amendments?
Lillehaug: Point of clarification. Maybe I'm not paying attention here but previous one
we had to have a sign variance.
Sacchet: nat's B. Letter B. After the conditions on page 6. We're going to need a
second motion for that.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: And the proposal says we deny the sign variance which nobody seemed to think
we wanted the sign except, we had discussion about that one a little bit. Let's finish this
one. Any friendly amendments? Do we want to say we want to do something there?
Lillehaug: I would like to say work with staff on berming on the south and west side.
Claybaugh: That's acceptable.
Sacchet: Acceptable? Alright.
Claybaugh moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Site Plan approval of Planning Case # 04-21, plans prepared by
Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC, dated May 5, 2004, revised 5-13-04, 5-20-
04 and 6-24-04, with a 38 -foot variance from the parking setback requirement and a
variance to permit two rows of parking between the building and the road based on
the attached rmilings and recommendation and subject to the following conditions:
1 The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The developer shall provide a bike rack. Additionally, the developer shall install
benches on both the 11ighway 5 and Galpin Boulevard sides of the building.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. All sidewalks shall be provided with accessible ramps.
10
Planning CommissionAkting — July 6, 2004 0
5. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are
submitted.
7. Utility plans: Cleanouts are required in the sanitary sewer system in accordance
with the Minnesota Plumbing Code.
8. Applicant shall plant 8 deciduous trees along Galpin Boulevard in order to meet
minimum requirements.
9. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This
is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
10. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding the maximum allowable size of domestic water on a
combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention division Policy #36-1991.
11. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and
industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation
Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed.
12. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
13. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copyenclosed.
14. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow -painted curbing will be required. Please
contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact sign locations and for exact curbing to
be painted yellow.
15. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water
calculations shall be submitted to verify that the existing storm water pond is sized
adequately for the proposed development.
16. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
I I
Planning Commission Oting — July 6, 2004
0
Typ� of SIgZ Time (Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.)
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such
as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage
ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
17. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping
and street sweeping as -needed.
18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Carver County, Rfley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
19. Show the location of the accessible ramps on the plans.
20. All final plans must be signed by a registered civil engineer.
21. Add all applicable 2004 City of Chanhassen detail plates to the plans.
22. On the Grading Plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Show the location of the existing silt fence.
c. Show the existing topography of the site.
23. The retaining wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer and a permit
from the Building Department must be obtained for its construction.
24. The City's type H silt fence must be used adjacent to the wetland on the east side of
the site. In addition, a 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be
included at the main access drive to the site.
25. The remaining assessment due payable to the City at the time of building permit
application is $10,479. In addition, sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges
along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due at the time of building permit
issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hook-up charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary
sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The 2004 SAC fee is $1,425 per unit. The
hook-up charges and SAC fee are based on the number of SAC units assigned by
the Met Council.
12
Planning Commission Sting — July 6, 2004 0
26. Storm sewer sizing calculations will need to be submitted for review prior to
building permit approval.
27. Directional signage showing access to TH 5 and south Galpin Boulevard shall
be installed.
28. Revise the drive aisle width of the drive-thru exit from 16 to 20 feeL
29. Work with staff to increase the berming adjacent to TH 5 and Galpin
Boulevard."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Now we need a second motion. Is there any discussion about that first? Which
is the issue about the sign variance for the pylon sign. Right?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Pylon sign. Is there any discussion? Any comments about it? Somebody want
to make a motion?
Claybaugh: Follow up with a motion. Planning Commission recommends denial of the
sign variance based on the attached findings of fact and recommendation.
Sacchet: Second please.
Lillehaug: Second.
Claybaugh moved, Lfllehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
denial of the sign variance based on the attached findings of fact and
recommendation. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Sacchet: This will go to council on the 121. That's going to be real soon. In summary
for City Council, we found the applicant was very responsive to the concerns we voiced
when this came in front of us first time. In terms of revising the design or fine tuning the
design I should say of the drive thm portion and the traffic situation. Adding some more
green space. And we were struggling a little bit, some of us at least with encroachment
with the parking into the easement. But under the circumstances overall we think it's a
good proposal. We'd like, at least some of us like to have some additional consideration
that looks at berming and the buffer planting to see whether that could possibly be
improved a little bit, and other than that I think this is a pretty clear, straight forward
thing. Anything you'd like to add?
Claybaugh: Chairman, could Commissioner Slagle comment on his dissenting vote?
13
Planning CommissionAting — July 6, 2004 0
Slagle: No comment on that. But I would say, if I can ask that the city work with the
county.
Sacchet: On the U turn? Okay.
Slagle: I think that's going to be an issue.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, and we do want to point out that we had one commissioner not in
favor of denying the extra pylon sign. But the opinion generally is that there is an
existing pylon sign that was originally intended to serve both properties and that we
would like to stick with that agreement. Alright, that's this item. Good luck with it.
APPROVAL OF NENUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 15, 2004 as presented.
Sacchet: And so we'll adjourn to have discussion. No?
Slagle: I don't know if there's anybody that wants to have any comments.
Sacchet: To?
Slagle: I see Mr. Anderson here.
Aanenson: I think he's probably here for the next item.
Sacchet: I think they're here for discussion so meeting's adjourned.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Narm Opheim
14
Planning Commission Sting — June 15, 2004
important for all the road alterations on 41 to f6flow the full standards of road
construction from MnDot and so forth with the turning lanes and everything. We looked
at safety and we had some concerns about crossing 41. We want to make sure there's
sufficient sidewalks on either side accessing the new parking lot area. I think that was
very well received with crosswalks across the islands and then walkway all the way to the
end of the parking lot. Additional landscape buffering towards Tanadoona to integrate it
more, and also a tree study was kind of absent from this in terms of what are we cutting
down. I would think that'd be an element that could be addressed to some extent when it
goes in front of council. I would encourage that. And I think that's about the comments.
Anything else?
Lillehaug: I had one rebuttal comment is, my opinion is that it will have a flavor of a
frontage road once this is connected with Crimson Bay.
Sacchet: Okay. If it gets connected. If
Lillehaug: If, there we go. Yep.
Sacchet: Abight. And I think that's it for this one. Thank you very much. Wish you
luck with this project. Thanks for cooperating and everything.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DEVELOPNMNT, LLC, CVS/PHARMACY, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-21.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff.
Tjomhom: My question is regarding, and I don't know if I missed it in my reading
because I could have missed it but the drive thru stipulation. Was there a whole part that
showed the hours and you know noise, speakers, lighting, that kind of thing or wasn't
there?
Generous: There wasn't as part of the staff report, no.
Tjomhom: Okay. And I mean, is that something we should talk about or is it okay?
Generous: Well if it's a concern of your's, we can definitely request the applicant clarify
what their hours of operation are.
Tjomhom: We don't have any rules though about hours or anything like that?
39
Planning Commission Atting — June 15, 2004 0
Generous: No, not specifically. Only if they create excessive noise and it becomes a
nuisance.
Tjomhom: And it's a pharmacy so I was just assuming since it is a pharmacy it might be
open a little later. Which isn't a big deal I'm sure but I'm just, and so then with lighting
for that too, there's no problem with it being lit?
Generous: Well it's all down lit as required by our ordinance so there's very little spill
over.
Tjomhom: Okay. That's all for now I think.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany.
Keefe: I've got a couple questions. The amount of parking on the site, is that driven by
the need from the retail piece or is it more, what is driving the amount of parking I guess
is the question.
Generous: Well our ordinance requires specific amounts. Retail operations are I per 200
square feet of building area. They're exceeding that slightly. What our ordinance would
require.
Keefe: Okay. So is that ordinance also take into account the drive thru for this type of
use? I mean you know, the question I would have is there a reduction required for
parking in association with having a drive thru?
Generous: No.
Keefe: No? Okay. The drive thru itself, how you get to the drive thru. It looks like you
enter it from the northwest comer and you go through the parking lot and you wrap
around the building and come to the drive thru. Is there also a second entrance to the
northeast? And that's what it looks like? But it looks like out on the plan, at least I was
looking at it, there was a sign that says drive thru through the parking lot. I didn't know
what, sort of the natural flow for the drive thru is. Would it typically go through the
parking lot or would it typically go, come in to the second entrance?
Generous: The applicant may be able to discuss the operation.
Sacchet: It might be an applicant.
Generous: If there's no cars there coming from the northeast into that drop off, would be
a very natural movement.
Saam: I think the major access point though typically is from Galpin. At least that's
where we see most of the truffic currently. That accesses that Kwik Trip so if you're
U11
I Planning Commission Itting — June 15, 2004 0
coming from there, chances are you're probably going to make the first right and make
the loop around versus going down.
Keefe: Yeah, I mean just during all operations, if you have cars backing in and out, I
mean it is a convenience store type of retail use where you're going to have cars backing
in and out and then you're going to have people going through the drive thru. It seems
like you would want to route them maybe separately if you have the option to do that, and
it looks like you have a second entrance a little further east. Fmjust kind of curious what
your thoughts are on that. The berming and the landscaping along 5, what is the height of
the berm? The one thought I had is when I looked at this and I thought of the count for
the landscaping and shrubs and it says well we're going to over shrub. You know a lot of
low level. Well this is the type of low level, I'm not sure what type of cover you're going
to get.
Saam: Yeah, that's one of the, one of our conditions I believe in there. They're showing
existing, what looks like existing topography or contours on the Highway 5 side, but in
reality it's our belief, those contours are what this site was like prior to the development
coming in there. So I think that's one of our conditions in there that we've added is to
give us true existing topo and then show us the berming you know at that point because
they're not showing any proposed berming along 5 currently.
Keefe: Okay. It says berming and landscape on.
Saam: On the site plan. If you look on the grading, none of the proposed contours are
being shown there. And it makes us think that there is this big existing berm there and
there's an existing berm right where the building is. If you go out to the site, it's been as
a separate, it says it's been rough graded. So we believe these contours were from prior
to the rough grading occurring, if you follow me.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. Question on the sign. Is the sign we're talking about the one on this
elevation? That they're proposing, or are we talking about the other one that's sort of out
next door to the, across the street with the Kwik Trip?
Generous: No, the one that's outside of the parking lot.
Keefe: Okay, so this one would remain.
Generous: Yes, and they comply with the ordinance.
Keefe: Okay, so this one complies but we're talking about a free standing sign that is the
one that is not recommended, is that correct?
Generous: That's correct.
Keefe: Okay.
41
Planning Commission Oting — June 15, 2004 0
Generous: That's it? Steve, you want to jump in?
Ullehaug: Sure. Parking setbacks. Why in staff s opinion would we deviate from the
parking setbacks? I mean why do we typicaIly maintain parking setbacks? And then
why would we deviate from them in this case?
Generous: Why we maintain them? You want to separate them from the highway. We
reduce the amount of parking in the front of this building. Those setbacks would work
perfectly if the building backed up to this Mghway 5. And that's what our previous
design actually it was the side of the building that we were looking at with the original
project. And they only needed one row of parking there and then the drive aisle to get
around the building. Now, when they came in we said put your front up on Highway 5.
When you have a retail operation you put your parking in the front because people aren't
going to park in back and walk around the building so we're recommending approval so
that this operation will work for the developer. Can we get screening on the parking lot?
Definitely. There's sufficient land in there. Parking. Use of hedges works. We don't
have to accept these small, they're definitely, definitely they're picture wants to show
their building. That's why they provide that. But they will grow.
Lillehaug: So you're saying if you were to back of the building, I mean you kind of back
the building, I mean if there would have been a different arrangement where the building
was flipped around, you're saying we wouldn't have had a parking setback problem?
Generous: Highway 5, no. They would have met, we believe they would have been able
to meet that.
Lillehaug: Even with the drive dim having to circulate?
Generous: Because the drive thru could come up. Or the driveway can come up to this
line so they could bring the driveway around here. Put one row of parking on top of that.
Next to the end of the building and face all the fronts of the unit out to here. We're
actually looking at possibly a multi -tenant building. And so they'd have the frontage
onto Galpin. But with a single user we said put your frontage on ffighway 5. By doing
that that leads to the rest of the site there.
UHehaug: Okay. Let's see, what else here. The entrances. I posed these questions to
your earlier but I want to throw them out there. The northeast entrance is pretty close to
Galpin Boulevard and there could be operational problems.
Keefe: Northwest.
lAllehaug: Northwest, sorry. If 3 cars came in there trying to turn into the parking lot at
once and they started backing up onto Galpin Boulevard, do we have any concerns with
that or are we pretty, we think this is the best situation we've got here? And also both
driveways, is it possible to line them up with the Kwik Trip driveways?
42
Planning CominissionAkting —June 15, 2004
Saam: I believe yes, you could in both of them. However, especially this northwest one.
With the layout that they've shown, if you think about it. When you come in then and
make that right turn, it would almost be a 180 degree turn to get back into that main drive
aisle. I mean could it be done? Yeah. It could. I guess that's something you have to
weigh against that turning movement and. This one to us just seemed to lay out a little
better, but I do agree with your comment with the access being close to Galpin. It's kind
of a two edge sword.
Lillehaug: Are they widening this shared road inbetween Kwik Trip? Is that being
widened? Am I seeing that right? Because I comment on that, why I ask is.
Saam: The private street?
Lillehaug: Yeah, inbetween there. Is it being widened at all? And it goes with access
because I drive in there and it is a little narrower when you're coming off Galpin, if we
have that entrance right off Galpin.
Saam: They're not proposing. We could check with the applicant but I don't think
they're proposing to widen it.
Lillehaug: No? Okay. Well, let me go on here and just, someone else can go here. I
think I've got everything.
Sacchet: Okay. Well we can get back to you Steve if you have some more thoughts. Go
ahead Rich.
Slagle: I've just got a basic question for staff on this, and the question would be, given
the size that this applicant is requesting for this building, do you believe it is too large for
this lot?
Generous: No.
Slagle: Okay. My next question with that answer, is this. Is this traffic flow that we're
talking about, which I think is a result of requesting two rows of parking on the front, and
I go back to staffs recommendation that the front be towards 5. Okay. I think that, my
question is do you feel that we are going to run into some real traffic issues in that
northwest entrance/the private road to Galpin? I'll give you an example. If the drive thru
was on the east side of the building, okay? They would drive through. You would have
one lane of parking on the front. They would pick up their thing on the east side and
drive north. And then they would go out that entrance either to the east to West 78'h or
they'd take a left there and come back to Galpin versus, because really what we've
resulted is we have two sides of the store that have no parking. And I don't know if
that's a result of us requesting the front be towards 5 or if the sides of the building and
their desire not to have a drive thru on the east and I'm not an expert but I just think
we're going to have a really interesting entrancelexit right at Galpin and especially with
43
Planning Commission Sting — June 15, 2004 0
the Kwik Trip traffic so, that's comments but my question is, do you think we are, do you
think this is the only alternative?
Saam: No, I don't. I mean you just threw one out. Commissioner Lillehaug threw it out
moving the entrances.
Slagle: Was it discussed with the applicant any other options?
Generous: Well only initially we did reconimend that they flip the building and put it in
that corner. The northeast. We thought east/northeast and they went north/northeast.
For where the drive thru window is.
Slagle: Oh okay. That's all.
Sacchet: Steve, did you find any more? I have a few questions too. And my main
concern here is not so much the parking. I think that's a given that you want the parking
close to where the entrance is. And it makes sense to have your entrance in that comer to
the southwest. However with the drive thru, I mean I see people are not going to drive
around the building. People are going to drive into the easterly entrance and to make a U
turn to go up to the drive thru from there because that's the shorter way to do it.
Slagle: Or a hard right.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's what I mean. It's like a U turn almost. Uke right.
Slagle: You're from Europe, so it would be a U turn.
Sacchet: For you it'd be a hard right, alright. Thanks for the language lesson. So with
that making a hard right, if there is nobody stacked up, then that should go pretty smooth.
Trouble is if there are cars stacked up, then it becomes an issue. It gets a little messy
because if somebody's been waiting in line there for a while wrapping around the
building and somebody comes and makes the hard right, but maybe that's something the
applicant can tell us. I don't know whether this type of thing, people stack up. Maybe
they stack up very little and it's not an issue. So that's not a staff question. You'll have
to help me with that one. We're clear on EFIS. We're clear on the windows. Are we
clear with the buffer yards? I mean we said buffer yard plantings are not where they need
to be and we asked them to fulfill the minimum requirement. There's no issue there?
There's plenty of room to put all that stuff? And one thing that kind of irked me from a
procedural thing, the staff report, the body of the staff report doesn't have findings and
there are two variances here. One is the variance of the parking setback and the other one
is the variance for the sign variance. There seems to be some sort of findings later on
here and then the findings of fact part following the staff report. I just want to be clear
whether they take the place of the findings that we usually see in the staff report.
Generous: Right. These are instead of duplicating them. We copy the findings that we
have in the staff report and put them in the findings.
F -I I
Planning Commission Sting — June 15, 2004 0
Sacchet: So moving forward we'll do it this way so we don't have to look at them twice
to see whether they were edited in the meantime in one place and not in the other.
Generous: Yes, exactly. If you change them up front, we want them to be consistent.
Sacchet: Okay. And so I'm clear on that one. Detail question. Norway Maple. We
seem to make a condition that we do not want different, Norway Maple. It seems very
specific thing and I was just curious. That's not a recommended tree in Chanhassen?
Generous: That was Jill's comment.
Sacchet: Alright. Well that's all my questions. Thank you. With that, I do believe we
have an applicant here. If you want to come forward and tell us more about your project.
If you have anything to add to what staff had and maybe we have some questions.
Maybe you see some of the questions that came up already and the questions of staff, if
you want to state your name and address for the record please.
Bill Tippmann: My name is Bill Tippmann. I'm Vice President of Bear Creek Capital.
We are a development real estate development company from Cincinnati, Ohio. We are
I of 7 developers designated by CVS to develop and construct their stores in the United
States. We've been assigned, we've been a developer for CVS in the Cincinnati, Dayton
market for about 6 years. We've been working here in the Twin Cities area for about 2
years. We currently are in various stages of development on approximately 20 sites in,
we've been assigned this side of the river. There's another developer similar to us who's
doing the other side of the river. In fact today was a big day. We closed on our first site
after 2 years of hard work in the city of Plymouth.
Sacchet: Congratulations.
Bill Tippmann: Thank you. I also have Mark Jasper with Anderson Engineering with us
who can answer any technical questions. With respect to the drive thru, I know there was
a lot of discussion and circulation around the drive thru. The city, of the 20 sites that
we're doing, I believe there are 5 or 6 inside the city of Minneapolis. The transportation,
Director of Transportation in the City of Minneapolis had the very same question. We
commissioned a study to satisfy his concerns. We'll be more than happy to share with
staff but the short story on that study was that they observed, and I believe first of all
CVS functions very much like a Walgreen's in this market. They both have the double
drive thru pick-up window that I'll describe in a second. But they observed I believe 5
Walgreen's in the Minneapolis area and 4 or 5 CVS stores in the Chicago area and in
each case they logged the number of cars waiting at a pick up window at all the observed
stores. The most they saw waiting at any one store at any one time was 3 cars, so with
that the City of Minneapolis is requiring that we have, that we provide stacking of at least
3 cars back of here. So that being the case, I don't know, I personally don't believe
there's going to be much of a conflict between people entering the cue for that drive thru.
U11
Planning Commission Meting — June 15, 2004
Sacchet: Well that helps because one of your drawings shows 12 of them waiting.
Bill Tippmann: Why 12, whether somebody got happy with the mouse I don't know.
Sacchet: Somebody was definitely ... cars.
Bill Tippmann: So again, if anyone's interested in that study, more than willing to share.
As to the function of the drive thru. The way they operate is exactly the same
Walgreen's, so you may be familiar within this market. They have an outside drop off
window where you actually it's a pneumatic tube where you drop off the paper
prescription. You come back around when the prescription is filled at the window. Is
that me?
Sacchet: That was me, sorry.
Bill Tippmann: And the point I'm stressing here is that of the merchandise that's in the
store, the only products he can pick up at the window are pharmaceuticals. You can't
buy a gallon of milk. You can't buy Pampers. You can only get pharmaceuticals there.
Slagle: If I may, just so I'm clear. Did you just state that they would drive through the
pattern that we see here on our plans and on some cylinder like a bank, they would drop
in a prescription.
Bill Tippmann: If you were to look at the elevations of the building there's a sign over.
Slagle: Can you show us? There we go.
Bill Tippmann: There's a sign over.
Slagle: And what I'm getting at is, are you suggesting that someone goes around twice?
Bill Tippmann: They could either call in their prescription and pick it up when it's ready,
or if they have a paper prescription they could drop it off on the outside. This lane being
the outside lane.
Slagle: And that's the east elevation?
Bill Tippmann: Yeah. And make it out ... where it says drop off or prescription drop off
or something like that. And you drop it off in a pneumatic tube.
Slagle: And that's the one that's on the lane to the north of the lane that you pick up.
Bill Tippmann: Correct.
Slagle: Okay.
Ertl
Planning Commission sting — June 15, 2004 0
Bill Tippmann: And to pick up your pharmaceuticals.
Slagle: You drive again around and get closer to the building. Okay.
Bill Tippmann: Any more questions I can answer.
Slagle: Boy yeah. I mean you've even, with that description of potentially, and I think
more than likely a double circle around the building, I'm even wondering more what your
thoughts are as to having your drive thru on the east side of the building.
Bill Tippmann: I heard that discussion and I guess I didn't understand what the benefit
was.
Slagle: Sure. Let me try and give you at least one person's viewpoint. Two, and
interesting we both live north of this property as the crow flies less than a mile, so we use
that Kwik Trip quite often. Galpin into that private road is quite busy. I mean it's sort of
a non-stop flow of traffic. I shouldn't say non-stop but busy.
Bill Tippmann: I think I see where you're going. The people exiting the drive thru
would exit this way.
Slagle: Correct. Correct, and what they would do is take a left as you just used your
hand to go northward after they picked up their prescription from the east side of the
building. They go up to the private road. Take a left. And sort of avoid what I'm going
to call the intersection to the northwest, other than they would be one of the cars trying to
get out to Galpin. And now when you just mentioned that they would go around twice,
you would actually add another person coming from the back side of the store, taking a
left and depending on how quick you can fill a prescription, they either drive around a
number of times or they go park somewhere. Or go into your store and buy something
and pick it up. You would know those details more than I but I'm just asking, was it a
consideration to put the drive thru on the east.
Bill Tippmann: We have, of the 20 plus or minus stores that we're doing in the
Mnneapolis/St. Paul. Actually Nlinneapolis/St. Paul's probably closer to 40 stores. We
have some with the drive thru on the rear. The trade off that operationally and to some
extent from a traffic flow standpoint that we run into. The way the store functions, the
pharmacy is about this size on the inside of the store. And there's a, call it a stopper on
this comer with an entrance door here. The conflict you run into by sliding this around
this side is you start running into, it can be resolved and we've done it on some of the 20
stores, where we have the drive thru here and the service elements here and there's a bit
of a conflict. It can be worked out. But personally, I mean strictly from a functional
standpoint with respect to these two elements, it works cleaner this way. Can it be made
to work? Probably. As we're studying maybe between now and council, quite possibly
we'd be more than happy to explore those options with staff.
47
Planning Commission sting — June 15, 2004
Sacchet: On the other end of that coin, is that the reason why you have this at the very
comer because I wonder in terms of the stacking the cars, whether it'd be better to move
it up a little bit.
Bill Tippmann: That's the reason. As with most retailers, CVS buys their components
en masse and they, two reasons. One, they get economies of scale in buying all the
counters. All those white counters you see inside. They all come in one package. This
works with that element. The other is that of the elements in the store and, for lack of a
better term, profitability of the store, a pharmacy is a large component of that and they
have a very sophisticated method of how this whole thing functions that frankly I don't
understand. It's for that reason they like to keep this, these two elements together. So
that's why it's on the very comer of the store.
Slagle: If I can just throw out. Per your comment earlier, which I appreciated about the
stacking and the study, and if we can assume no more than 3 or 4 cars. It would
potentially work on the east side of the building. You've shared that there's some models
that you've done, and my guess is you have a number of layouts across the country that.
Bill Tippmann: Most definitely. CVS has something like 5,000 stores so.
Slagle: Yeah, so I'm sure they could figure out some way to make this work.
Bill Tippmann: Oh it absolutely works because I know we've solved several in
Minneapolis. Or the greater Minneapolis area.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Steve?
Ullehaug: With that, would you consider pushing, getting rid of that northerly road and
pushing the store to the north so you wouldn't have a road all the way around your
building and possibly signing that as a one way? Entrance and exit. And let me also add,
do you have, have you seen any problems with traffic coming into that northeast
intersection? You know you've got cars lined up on the left of there and then cars on the
right and they're coming right through the middle. It's not a typical situation. Have you
seen any problems with that?
Bill Tippmann: I personally have not. I know that the store is not a, it's not a Wal-Mart
scale traffic generator. I mean it's a convenience store. One, as we were, as the panel
was talking I was watching the plan and I wondered, and perhaps Mark you could venture
an opinion on this. Whether this drive can be tipped slightly that way to allow more
stacking and less conflict here. I think the trade off that we're going to run into though,
and I suspect it's the reason Mark drew it the way he did, is he's trying to create some
distance between these two. And you get to a point, and I know when these start getting
closer and closer together, if not exactly aligned, you run into conflict. I know I heard
traffic engineers say that in the past. It's possible that by skewing it slightly this way, we
could pick up. Right now it appears that there's probably spaces for 3 cars to stack to
M
Planning CommissionAkting — June 15, 2004 0
make this left before there's a conflict for somebody pulling in. Maybe we could pick up
another car that way.
Slagle: Would you, if I could go on, would you be open to in essence a one way?
Sacchet: On the east entrance?
Slagle: Coming from the northwest it'd be one way going south and then to the east and
then to the north and out.
Bill Tippmarm: Operationally I could see CVS resisting that.
Sacchet: How about one way on the eastern entrance? Not necessarily on both.
Bill Tippmann: One way on this one? I don't know that that would, I don't know what
that would accomplish. If nothing else to accommodate trucks I would think you'd want
to bring trucks.
Sacchet: Yeah, with the garbage truck it would be an issue. I was thinking in terms of
the drive thru, if it would be shifted around. That it'd just be a clear exit.
Bill Tippmarm: Most patrons of the drive thru are repeat customers, I know that.
Sacchet: So they know.
Bill Tippmarm: Yeah, they'd begin to understand how it functions.
Sacchet: Steve, still your turn.
Ullehaug: What do you think about adding a few more trees on the west side. Increasing
the screening from Galpin, and also staff's comments earlier about building that berm on
the south side up to maybe reflect some of those existing contours that you're showing.
Bill Tippmarm: That would, I believe, in fact I had not even noticed before in sitting in
the audience, I believe that you are correct. The topo shown on our original plan was one
we received from the developer. It probably reflected a stock pile that sat there at one
time that's not there anymore. Yeah, we're perfectly willing to do what screening and
mounding we're required to do on this site. I guess our concern, as with any retailer, is
we have an attractive building. We have signage on the building. We just want to make
sure that that doesn't get screened.
Lillehaug: So if you go back to a 10 foot high berm that's kind of shown there, it'd cover
up that existing pylon sign out there, are you okay with that?
49
Planning Commission lating — June 15, 2004 0
Bill Tippmann: 10 foot would pretty well screen the building too. I mean seriously, at
eye level in a car, you're what? 3 or 4 feet high. You're not going to see the building.
But again, screening the parking along this area and along this area is not a problem.
Lillehaug: One other question. Roof equipment. Is there any roof equipment on this
building?
Bill Tippmann: It is but we have a high parapet wall on the front and on the two sides. I
want to say it's 4 foot tall.
Ullehaug: So you would say, if I'm standing on the property line all the way around
your property, that it'd fully be screened? Would you concur with that?
Bill Tippmann: Yeah. I know in our prototypical drawings, if I remember correctly, this
side is down. The roof slopes this way. But I know on these two sides it's at least 4 foot
tall so it would hide any roof.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Keefe: Just have a couple of questions. One, what are that typical operating hours for
something like this? Do you know?
Bill Tippmann: Of the stores that CVS will locate in the Twin Cities area, they will, and
I'm going to make up a number but it's close. It's probably 15 or 20 percent of the stores
will be 24 hour stores. The reason being they need, they strategically locate those stores,
and Walgreen's frankly does the same thing. They locate them in some proximity to the
population if you need a prescription filled at 3:00 in the morning, you don't have to
drive to St. Paul to get it filled. There is something reasonably close. Whether this store
becomes one of those 15 or 20 percent, given the fact that we're on the edge of the
market area, my believe is it's probably not going to be. So the typical operations hours
are 11:00 to midnight, something like that.
Keefe: Just a question, in regards to the entrances is on the southwest comer of this
particular building. From a retail perspective, and from a building perspective, does it
matter whether you're facing the street or the highway or would you rather, and from a
retail perspective, enter, have the entrance where the entrance is. Or does it matter?
Bill Tippmann: CVS, as most retailers, always want the entrance at the most visible
location. In this case the comer.
Keefe: That's all I have.
Sacchet: I'm still struggling with this location of the drive thru, if you don't mind. I
mean you're basically allocating two lanes of traffic on the north side of the building to
having that drive thru. in the, on the north side. On the northeast comer. So there must be
significant benefit by doing that if you put that much allocation of space for that. When
6111
Planning Commission lating — June 15, 2004 0
you could just have it on the east side, northeast comer and basically wouldn't need that
wide of road to the north. So I'm trying to understand why, what's, I mean, and I don't
know whether that's something that can easily be answered.
Bill Tippmann: I can't stand here and answer it because I'm not the final decision maker
on a lot of these things. I mean this is a sophisticated operation, one of these stores.
Sacchet: Because it appears to me if you're allocating that much space, that's going to be
the whole length of the building. Two lanes of width, to have it up there, must be very
significant.
Bill Tippmann: It is absolutely a drive, notjust a drive thm but the double drive thru.
Sacchet: And to have it on the eastern comer rather than a little further west, I'm kind of
perplexed. I mean common sense wise I would either shift it over to a little bit more west
so you use that space a little more. It seems like you're wasting this whole space.
Bill Tippmann: It's purely a function of how the pharmacy lays out inside the store itself.
That's what drives this location on the comer, and frankly that's why, I'm sure that's
what drives the location on this particular site. Even though there is additional cost and
expense in constructing this drive as opposed to doing it here, this is the business model
that they've created that they know works.
Slagle: Mr. Chair, if I may. The pharmacy is, safe to say, intentionally the further thing
from the door.
Bill Tippmann: Correct.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Because you have to go through the store and you see all the stuff you didn't
plan to get and you get it. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense from that angle. Okay. Ut's
see. I don't think I have any other questions.
Slagle: Thank you very much.
Bill Tippmann: Thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing, and even though we don't have a crowd sitting
here, I still open the public hearing and if anybody wants to stand up and talk, this is the
chance. And since there is nobody here, nobody can stand up to talk so I close the public
hearing. And bring it back to commissioners.
Ullehaug: Can I ask the staff one more question regarding the.
Sacchet: Absolutely.
r
Vill
Planning CommissionAting — June 15, 2004 0
Lillehaug: Regarding the pylon and the monument sign. Is that allowable? I mean we
already have the pylon sign there so we allow him a monument sign also?
Generous: They get a monument sign. The pylon was supposed to be shared for the
Galpin Business Center, so.
Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that?
Bill Tippmann: Yeah, I'm sorry. I forgot to address...
Lillehaug: And I'm not opposed to it either. I'm just asking.
Bill Tippmann: I wanted to give Bob's clarification. The staff report said that we are too
close with this pylon,
Sacchet: With the monument.
Bill Tippmann: What is the required setback?
Generous: It's half the required setback so.
Bill Tippmann: So it's halfway to this? So it's somewhere back here?
Generous: Yeah, and I thought ... to meet the setback.
Sacchet: So you're okay with that?
Bill Tippmann: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Glad you clarified that. Alright, questions, comments,
discussion.
Slagle: I can start. I think it would be a wonderful addition. I can share with the group
that I cannot support it as it's currently stated. And I'm referring to the site plan. If the
applicant would be willing to produce the drive thru on the east side, possibly move the
building a little further north. And either minimize or delete that lane to the north, I
would be open to that. But I really believe that if we do not, if we don't encourage cars
to exit out the northeast corner of this parcel, we're going to have a mess on that
northwest comer. So, everything else I'm okay with, including the pylon sign.
Sacchet: The high one. Alright. There's a comment. Want to go this way?
Lillehaug: Can I ask a point of clarification on the pylon sign? Are we talking a different
pylon sign other than what's out there?
52
Planning Commission Ating — June 15, 2004 0
Slagle: I'm okay with, staff is recommending denial but I'm suggesting I'm okay with
that.
Sacchet: So they would change the one that exists and make it higher?
I-illehaug: And what would happen with Kwik Trip's then?
Sacchet: Kwik Trip has a 50 foot one.
Slagle: Correct. I'm suggesting that Kwik Trip.
Sacchet: You're not suggesting two of them?
Slagle: Yes I am.
Sacchet: You are suggesting two?
Slagle: That's my.
Sacchet: He likes signs. Nothing we can do about that.
Slagle: Well I think we're asking the applicant to do some things, if my thoughts are
shared, in exchange for that maybe.
Sacchet: Alright, Steve...
Lillehaug: Now I'll make my comments. Ahight. I'm pretty close with Commissioner
Slagle here, but this is a PUD. Higher standards than a typical development. So with that
said, I would like to see more screening on the south and on the west, ensuring that we
get an adequate berm there to screen the parking. Not 10 foot tall to screen a building but
at least the parking. Entrance, the northwest entrance. We need to push that, or I think
we should require pushing that back as far away from Galpin as possible. Yes, it's not
ideal to have those intersections with Kwik Trip and that close or not perfectly fined up
but I'd rather have a problem there than out on Galpin. Get them off the regional road.
Have a more of a problem on the internal. I think that'd be safer than out on the regional
road. We didn't talk about this but if I'm coming from the north where I live, going to
Kwik Trip or not, maybe we should also have a walk. There's a connector walk going
out to the sidewalk on the southwest comer. I'm thinking maybe one, or maybe I'm
going overboard here but on the northwest comer across and connect a walk there too.
Otherwise they're going to be walking through the parking lot. So if that's something
that could easily be added, I think you know it would add a little bit to it. Staff indicated
on page 8 that they're going to be communicating with Carver County about a, and this is
independent of this development but about a no U turn. I'm not fully bought off on that
and I don't think I would support that because vehicles are going to leave inbetween
Kwik Trip and CVS, sorry, by mistake or whatever. And if they can't make a U turn
there, they're going to go further up and they're going to do something up in residential
53
Planning Commission ating — June 15, 2004 is
neighborhoods or something. They're going to be coming through my neighborhood and
I don't want that. No.
Slagle: But point of clarification. Why wouldn't you think they would take a left on
West 78th9
Lillehaug: Why wouldn't they? Because they want to, people do it now. They do it all
the time and that's probably why you have it in there. You're getting complaints about it.
People go up there and make a U turn. You've probably seen it.
Slagle: No, what I'm suggesting is, when they go north, like you're taking your... and it
says no U turn, if they're going to go east. They take a right on West 78 . And as habits
will form...
Lillehaug: Alright, I support you. Good deal. It's an enforcement issue.
Keefe: We need some internal signage on that private road that are saying exit to the east
and then you could take a left on West 78th and then you could get out to 5 that way.
That might be helpful as well.
Saam: Yeah, that's something else we talked about. Help to just get these motorists to
quit taking that U turn because we're getting tons of complaints and frankly it can be
dangerous. People coming from the north going south on Galpin going 40 or whatever
they are going, and somebody's going to whip a U'y right there.
Lillehaug: Okay, scratch that then. One other issue I do want to raise, and this isn't on
the CVS site but on Kwik Trip site. Right on the east of that car wash, people are going
up that and then they get up there, they're not taking a right. But they're taking a left and
they can't cross the median and they're driving out towards Galpin on the wrong side of
the road and I think I've seen it at least twice, maybe 3 times so there probably should be
a do not enter sign on that Kwik Trip site. Sorry, about deviating from your application
here but. I bring that to your attention, thank you. And I support what Commissioner
Slagle is saying on, I'm not bought off on this site routing of the traffic in there and I
think a better scenario would be as you indicated. I would support something different
but not this.
Sacchet: Dan.
Keefe: The applicant said that this operates a little bit like a Walgreen's and so I started
thinking about where I've seen a Walgreen's and I've actually been in one on 5 and Eden
Prairie Road. There happens to be one that sits up you know in approximately a similar
location as this one does here and the way that you drive into that one is you take a right
up north on Eden Prairie Road. Then you take a right into a street and they actually route
you to what appears to be the northeast entrance. Then you come back in and their
entrance was actually on the northwest comer, not facing 5 but it's actually on the
northwest comer. Now I'm not aware whether they have a drive thru and pick up
54
Planning Commission Sting — June 15, 2004 0
pharmacy or not, but there are some similarities there. I see if the traffic to this site is
similar to what it is there, there's going to be a lot of traffic problems in this northwest
comer. And I think we should look at understanding that better, just in terms of, it's just
going to be so congested that we would have real difficulties. I would think that you
know either pushing it down and just making one entrance. I understand the need for the
drive thru. I think Rich has a good idea about potentially moving it to the east side. I
understand the reason why I asked the applicant whether they would move the entrance to
the northwest. I don't know that that Walgreen's necessarily works the best either so, but
just from my own soil of drive through on that property, it does seem to work ahight.
And the congestion, although there is some congestion there as well, seems to work okay
but I just think that everybody's going to be coming in and off this thing from the south.
You're going to make that turn. People are going to be trying to get out from the drive
thru, plus you've got traffic going out from the entrance going back up that comer.
You've got people coming out of Kwik Trip and that comer's going to be a disaster I
think so I think we really need to take a harder look at it.
Sacchet: Bethany.
Tjomhom: I think it's fine. I think it's a good building. I think it's something that will
be an asset to the community as far as having a pharmacy with a drive thru, but I have to
concur with the rest of my commissioners that some more study has to be done with the
flow of traffic and that comer.
Sacchet: Well, well, well, well. Here we are. So it looks like we want to see more on
this traffic, and it's hard to disagree from this from my vantage point. With all due
respect, and obviously it's been thought through from your angle quite a bit. On the other
hand you're putting this in many places. I mean the whole idea is that this is a cookie
cutter type of thing that applies. Let's approve a concept and then a lot of your thinking,
the design is based on what's proven in other places. I do have to agree that somehow
the site is a little different from a cookie cutter and what I hear is that we're leaning to
table this and ask you have a close look at it. I mean I'm not a traffic specialist. It's hard
for me to judge this and then make an objective statement about it. But I do share a
concern that it's, the flow of it. It seems like all the traffic's going to come in on that
northwesterly entrance, which is going to potentially create a congestion. I don't know
how big a congestion. I can't judge that but maybe it could be mitigated by having the
drive thm on the back side, as it is a possibility as you affirmed. What's the time line?
Question from staff. What's the time line for this?
Generous: We're still within the 60 days.
Sacchet: Within the 60 days so if we would table this and ask the applicant to look at this
a little further. Work with staff to see that, would you want to address this briefly?
Bill Tippmann: Given the fact that the time line that we're on, first of all we would like
nothing more than to break ground on this property in the next 30 days if at all possible.
If it's possible. Given the fact that we are approximately 4 weeks away from the council
55
Planning Commission aing — June 15, 2004
meeting, if we were to get a recommendation this evening, if it would be possible to get a
recommendation that we work with staff on these issues between now and council, and in
the event that we can satisfy staff, that the best solution has been found, that we then have
the opportunity to go to council.
Sacchet: Well the impression I get from the comments that I hear is that there is enough
concern that we would like to see it again. Now, how quickly is that possible, in terms of
time line?
Generous: Theoretically you could get it back on for July Oh, which was going to be a
work session.
Sacchet: We have a work session that we could possibly put it in there. And then it
could go to council when?
Generous: The 12th is we did.
Sacchet: The 12d.
Generous: That's the same time.
Sacchet: Which would be the same time it would have gone otherwise? So that way we
wouldn't additionally slow you down. That's what I'm trying to establish here. Because,
and I don't know whether I'm mis-reading the comments. It seems like comments were
pretty clear and I do share the concerns to some extent. Personally I probably could be
talked into what you're suggesting but I don't think what I hear that.
Bill Tippmann: I mean that would give us approximately 3 weeks to develop whatever
we all conclude is the best.
Sacchet: I mean it's a combination. Where I'm coming from is, I think what we're
asking you is just do another step in looking at this in the context of this site. It looks like
your main focus, which I understands, makes a lot of sense. I mean you have your
formula and it fits. The space is there so you plop it in. And what I hear we're asking
you is just go and look at it a little more from the context rather than from the operation.
Rather than look at the design from the inside out, look at it from the outside a little more,
and I'm sure you did that to some extent but we're asking you to do that a little further. I
don't know whether I'm doing justice to the comments.
Bill Tippmann: I think that's a very good solution. Appreciate the solution.
Slagle: And I would draw out the fact that you have some models as has been based
upon what we've just discussed would make this next 3 weeks easier. Iwouldalsoask,if
possible with staff, just go out to the site if you haven't already together, and just view
the traffic coming from Kwik Trip on any given call it morning or evening, and you'll
quickly see I think that northwest corridor would be quite busy.
bm
Planning Commission Oting — June 15, 2004 0
Sacchet: What I hear is, I don't think we're asking for much of a redesign. I mean it
could possibly be a little bit of shifted north or something but we're not asking to rotate
or shift anything major. What we're asking is looking at this traffic thing in terms of the
two entrances. In terms of the location of the drive thru because I mean the situation on
your back side where you guys have two stacking lanes and then one lane goes opposite
and then the other lane goes, I mean it's a little bit irky. And I don't know, maybe this is
the best solution. Maybe that's proven to work but it looks like that's something that
hasn't really been studied very much.
Bill Tippmann: I think we can all come out with a better project if we take our time.
Sacchet: Okay. So thank you for clarifying that. Appreciate that. I think with that we're
ready to make a motion.
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion to table this request.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Liflehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan
#04-21 for Bear Creek Capital LLC, and Chanhassen Development, LLC, CVS
Pharmacy. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5
to 0.
Slagle: Staff is clear of what we're looking at?
Sacchet: Did we make it clear enough? Okay. Of what we're asking, okay. That's all.
Well thank you so much for, it's a great project and we definitely want to welcome you to
this town.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Slagle noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated June 1, 2004 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
57