Loading...
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