The URL can be used to link to this page

1992 09 16CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, and 3elf Farmakes. Ladd Conrad and Tim Erhart arrived during the discussion of item 2. MEMBERS ABSENT: 3can Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Charles Folch, City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNE~SHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Batzli: Do we have a staff report Kate? Aanenson: Can we see if there's anybody here? I don't see the Association President here. Batzli: Sure. Is someone here from the Association from Minnewashta Creek? No. As I recall, this was tabled last-time because we didn't know what they were applying for. Do we know what they're applying for, even though they're not. Aanenson: Yes, they've resubmitted a new application. I can go through the report if you'd like. Batzli: Why don't you do the condensed 30 second version of what's changed since they came in last time. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Just to clarify one more time. They had in in the inventory in '81 and '91, boats on land but they're not requesting any boats stored on land correct? Aanenson: Correct. Batzli: Okay. Thanks Kate. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak on this issue, could you approach the microphone and give us your name and address. No one wants to speak. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Matt, why don't we start with you. Do you have any questions? Ledvina: Well, I was looking through the documentation. There's one letter here by Terrence Thompson, Sr. and he's ~ot these signatures that attest to the fact that he was there. Kate, was there another-one for? Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 2 Aanenson: No, there wasn't a letter. The only other evidence was provided at the May 6th meeting .where Mr., I.'m not sure how you pronounce his name, got up and spoke and stated to the fact that' he had a boat in the water prior to that. The same amount of time so it's basically documentation in the Minutes. Ledvina: Okay. Other than that I really don't have any other questions. I think that they're going ahead and they're making provisions to improve the safety of the beachlot by adding the buoys which I think is a real good thing. Other than that, if those two boats were docked-in 1981, I should say moored, that would seem,, the request to-continue that would seem reasonable. Other than that I don't have any other items. The chemical toilet, is that something that's. Aanenson: They do have a conditional use for that. and it's separate. Ledvina: And that's A-okay. So that's it for me. Batzli: So we're approving this. We're not 'actually approving the portable chemical toilet other than in conformance with whatever conditions were placed on that from our other conditional use permit process? Aanenson: They do have a separate conditional use. Batzli: So if we make a motion to approve this, or recommend approval, should that be somehow reflected that the use of the portable chemical . toilet is governed by a separate conditional use. Aanenson: That might be good. Batzli: Steve. Emmings: I read my comments from our last meeting and I took a position at that time that I didn'-t think they should have any boats at this one and I'm going to turn myself around 180 degrees on that. They've moved these boats in front of this property this summer and I've kept my eye on it and it seems to be working over there. And if that's what they want, I think it's primarily a policing function of the Association there and so I guess I'd vote for in favor of approving this. The only question I've got is, just as an example Kate. I thought we w~ren't going to get into picnic tables and grills and all that kind of stuff. Aanenson: We're not. Emmings: But on the request, they haven't requested any. I know they have some. They had them in '91. They had them in ;81, just for picnic tables for example. But we're not in any way eliminating their right to. Aanenson: No. When we issue their permit we'll take that off as part of it. As long as we're on that, .can I make one other clarification? Where it says swimming beach, it says no but they are requesting that. 'So really the only things you're making an .interpretation on is the number of boats to be moored, because they're not asking for a dock. And then Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 3 by ordinance they can have a swimming beach so really all we're looking at is the number of boats and they're not asking for anything on land either. Emmings: Okay. Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: On these enumerable requests, I'm just sticking with the census, if there is one and I'm going to stay.with that. I think that's what we should do to be consistent. If the City Council' and staff want to make an exception on the issue that they didn't have any boats on the site in '81 moored, that there were no moorings out on the lake and now it would seem to me two was an expansion. And if you want to make an exception on that and you have some justification for that. I don't see any here but in a reasonable compromise or whatever you want to do that or in the interest of doing that, I'll leave that up to staff. The issue of the raft and the marker buoys. If you're going to have a raft, I wholly support the marker buoys but again, if that is an expansion, the raft and the buoys. According to the census, there were no buoys or a raft at that time. So again, that's an expansion of the use in '81. And again, if the issue is one of compromise, I don't feel a burning desire to hold that up if that's the situation that the city's worked out. 8atzli: Okay. My perspective on this I guess is, they've provided some evidence that they did have some boats moored. I'm willing to accept that. I think that the reduction in the number of boats on land from 4 to O, 2 boats moored and a swimming raft, I don't think is, when they demonstrated that they had the 2, I actually think there's been a reduction in the use of the beachlot here and swimming raft I think is a reasonable thing to approve so I'd vote in favor for the swimming raft and 2 boats being moored. Does anybody else have any other comments? Otherwise, I'll ask for a motion. Emmings: I'll move that the Planning .Commission reco'mmend approval of the Minnewashta Creek Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot with 2 boats moored, with the swimmin~ raft and the marker buoys and also with the understanding that the chemical toilet is governed under a separate conditional use permit. 8atzli: Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Creek Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot with 2 boats moored, with the swimming raft and the marker .buoys and also with the understanding that the chemical toilet is governed under a separate conditional use permit. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PROPOSES REZONING 20.96 RCRES OF PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PUDm PLANN[P UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A PRELIMINARY PUD AND SITE pLAN APPROVAL FOR TARGET DEVELOPPfliNT ON [0+ ACRES, AND AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING OF THE ENTIRE SITE. TARGET DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name AddreSs Bill McHale Fran Hagen Eric Johnson Margaret Fleck Ursula Dimler Dave Dimler Charlie 3ames B.C. "Jim" Burdick Mi ke Mason Ryan Construction Co. RLK Associates RLK Associates Target Corporation 7203 Kiowa Circle 7203 Kiowa Circle T.F. James Company Excelsior City Council Member Kate Aanenson presented the staff report for this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Bill McHale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is 8ill McHale again and we would specifically like to address what we saw as the main issues 2 we'eks ago. Specifically the general architecture of the building, the elevation on 78th, landscaping and the parking lot and also Outlot B. The main thing I think you're looking at Outlot 8 is you shouldn't feel hamstrung about approving any concept per se here. I think that that concept has-been' backed off somewhat. In fact the HRA has voted to go ahead and acquire this property whether or not there is a purchase agreement in place with Ryan. So that they can make more control over it in the future. Understanding that that was tough to get a handle on and maybe it was causing more concerns with the Target parcel unnecessary. I've got Fran Hagen here tonight'from RLK who can bring you through some sections that we had done through the site. Hopefully to get more comfortable with the landscaping-in general and Margaret Fleck fr.om Target is also here to go through the building, architecturally with the rendering and explain what she's done since the last time we were here. Fran, why don't you go through the sections first. Fran Hagen: To start with my name is Fran Hagen. I'm with RLK. At the Planning Commission meeting previously, in the comcept level, there was concerns about the views from West 78th. We hope that some of these have cross sections will help illustrate the points we were tr.ying to make earlier about the views from West 78th. This first section, the top one. The top section is this section right in here at the very east end of the site. I'll put it down here so you can see. East end of the site here. You can see that we are burying part of the building, and that's what we were discussing earlier. There's the, at this end over here is the plaza Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 5 area that was discussed up in the easterly corner. We have .a small retaining wall up to about 6 feet at the very east end going down to a couple of feet or 1 foot about 20 feet, 30 feet into this site. Not very extensive because we've buried the building partially to make up some of that grade difference. Let's see. You can see here the parking. There's more grass in this area because again, it's way over here. As I illustrated. It's not actually through the parking area. That is what this illustrates a little bit clearer over here and that is, this section here, BB. You see at this point the grade has come down a little bit so we're not as, we're quite a bit above the building elevation. We have the parking. We have landscaping. We'd like to point out that since the last time you saw it, we've, added landscape islands interior to this parking area along with a string of islands through this area here. We also found by going back and looking at using the standards of the city for a parking lot dimension, that we were' able to pull the whole parking lot area up 20 feet to get more green area, as far as impervious area for the site. I mean pervious area for the site, not impervious. Batzli: How wide is the road through to Burdick's? A standard width road? Fran Hagen: Ah yes. It's a one way road, It will be two way up at this far end. This parking lot to the north of the Target Center, or Target store is a one way diagonal parking system so you would come in on the south portion and then there's a turn around to come back. Well, you could also make a maneuver here and this is-30 feet, or what is it. 20, I'm not exactly sure what the standard is but it~would be whatever the city standard is. I believe that's 25 feet. Batzli: How wide is the sidewalk on that edge of the building? Fran Hagen: Right along here, 5 feet. Batzli: And does that lead to nothing at the east end then? Fran Hagen: On the east end, well there is an emergency exit. Or yeah, an emergency exit at this point right here. Batzli: And then it continues on to those'bushes? Fran Hagen: It would basically end where the parking is, yes. Basically from the parking over. 8atzli: Okay. Fran Hagen: You're indicating maybe some type of tie for the Burdick site? I guess I would point out that there is a sidewalk right up here. In fact there's sidewalk proposed all the way along West 78th and I would tend to feel that most of the people would be walking that direction. Aanenson: If I could make a clarification with the Fire Marshall. We've also asked that that sidewalk is part of a fire code thing. That the hard surface also go over towards the exiting doors. That's in his report_.so part of that is the sidewalk that sort of is again a fire, for them to Planning Commiss£on Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 6 get access to those doors. Around the corner. Fran Hagen: Are there any other questions in regards to this section? I'll move to the other portions of the main parking lot with the next section. Batzli: One other question. Assuming then that people walk all the way to the corner and don't cut through the parking lot because you've got a retaining wall that's about 6 feet there, is there then a sidewalk that comes down across the island through the.main drive to the front-of the store? Fran Hagen: Yes there is. Once again this parking on the north side of the building is going to be designated as employee parking. It will be circuit6d so that the lights stay on after the store is closed. But that was being designated as employee parking. That's about the number that they need for their employees. Farmakes: In reality A and B are superimposed on one another. There actually would be more trees extending back from Outlot B. We're also seeing trees in the background of A? ., Fran Hagen: Yes. Yes. Well, those sections, they're not superimposed if that's what you mean. Farmakes: No, I understand that but they-are in reality. Fran Hagen: There's actuall9 more trees. Batzli: There'd be more cars too. Fran Hagen: The next two sections again are views from West 78th. Through sections from West 7$th into the parking lot area. The top one, CC, is right in this area here. What we're trying' to show there is-as the road bends away from the site, we are able to get a larger massing so as you're looking down West 78th from down in the main part of town, we will be able to put more of a massing of trees here so that you get more of that green appearance than say you would normally have in your. 20 foot setback. I think we're approaching 40 feet wide at that point and there's quite a massing of trees proposed in that area. And again, you're not seeing the full magnitude because we're showing the trees that actually are in that area. But as you're looking from west to east, there'd be more masses of trees and I'd call your attention to the landscape plan to see the exact 'number and species of trees that fail. within that area. Batzli: So we're looking west in that scale? In that view there. Fran Hagen: No, you're looking back east again because. Batzli: We're at the back of the building. Fran Hagen: Well the building would be over in this area, if you were to see it in the background because you're looking this direction here so Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 7 the building would start right about there off in the background. And also it cuts through I guess these islands right in here. That's what those two islands are shown as. This bottom elevation is stepping back from West 78th, say going up maybe on the Charlie James side of the road there. The north side looking down at the building. 'This is somewhat of a better view of how many trees. You can see the trees that are up'here, up on top of the hill but you can see the ones where you.just see the heads of the trees. You can see that those are the ones that are down inside the parking, which is lower than the road. West 78th. Any questions on this cross section? The last two cross sections came about kind of in reference to what City Council had requested some views of. These are from the Highway 5 side. Starting on the Highway $ Side 'of the project. The upper most section here, Section DP, would be straight out from the building at a 90 degree at the top of that overpass. Or approach to the bridge. So that is roughly in this .area here. It is showing the, it's before the truck dock. It's going through here showing the mass of trees that exist now. Those aren't trees that we're planting. Those exist now. Other than the one tree up in here, we are proposing a string of ash and I believe they are down along where we are grading. 8ut this mass of trees exists now and that's what the City is trying to preserve as a screen partly and also just to preserve the existing mass of trees. This section,.which is called EE, would be roughly starting here on Highway 5 and kind of looking across the parking. Through the parking area towards the building itself. And you can see that's the entrance area of Target. We have a high portion there and you can see how much we are depressed down 'from that area, and you get a somewhat picture of the massing of the trees and also... If there any other questions as you're going along, I'd. be happy to answer them. Now, I'll turn it over to Margaret. 8atzli: This was in lieu of the computer aided graphics. Fran Hagen: I guess I skipped over the landscaping itself. Do you want to at this point address the specific landscaping or is that something? As we had mentioned, since the last time we were before you, we have tried to provide more green area on the site and in the parking lot itself trying to break it up a little bit. What we've proposed in addition to previously submitted first of all is a string of, we're taking advantage of the allowance in the Code of some compact car. Actually I think we're allowed quite a bit more than what we're proposing here but what we're doing is putting these smaller islands of two ornamental trees in each one of these islands and they will all be irrigated I believe. Isn't that a city requirement? Folch: Yes. Fran Hagen: I believe it is. I know it's a Target requirement from a previous discussion we had. Krauss: We'll make it one. Fran Hagen: We have a string of trees here. String of islands to try to soften that up, as we mentioned. We've also, because of the ability to tighten down the dimensions and such, we found more green space down in Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 8 through here. Specific trees, at the previous meeting was discussed putting a few trees in front of the building. Those are the ornamental crab apple type of trees. I don't see the specifics there. We've got quite a mixture of different trees. I don't know specific you want me to get at this time but we've got marshall ash along this roadway here. Over in here, especially where height is going to be a big, we want them to get up high and fast to try to soften the view of the Target from West 78th. Then we also have them proposed over here where ·they'd be dwarfed by the existing trees anyway if we tried to put anything or'her than something that grew fast and large., especia'lly an ash. We have pin oak and lindens scattered in a lot of these different islands. The pin oaks actually are not in the is.lands except this large island here. Those pin oaks are in this more landscaped mass area. Batzli: How do pin oaks do with salt? Fran Hagen: This is Eric. Eric 3ohnson: I'm Eric 3ohnson. I'm the landscape architect for RLK Associates. And with the salt that you're talking about, the. pin oaks we have located here in the back side of the building where we won't have to worry about a salt spray at all. We've got the pin oaks that are set farther back into, away from the parking area here. .There are the three that we talked about in this larger island area. 8ut due to the size of the island we'll be able-to set them back farther to get away from any splashing. This island here will be' irrigated as well to...the salt spray and take care of that particular row of trees. Batzli: I was thinking snow removal. People might use that as a place to pile snow. Fran Hagen: Just given the nature of' this parking lot, it's actually · sloped this direction and given the nature of this large area, I'm relatively certainly that snow removal will be in this manner' Just in looking at it from ease of, this is the most logical place for-snow removal, not to mention all the depressed hole 'of ponding area. Batzli: Do you have any questions on the landscaping that you want to -- talk about now? Farmakes: I'm concerned about the interior-area. Are we talking ornamental sizing? Let's say for instance on the double areas that are on, just to the left or right of the center line of trees. Fran Hagen: Yes, those were called out-for G and I. Those are crab and hawthorne. Farmakes: So what type of heights are we talking there? Eric 3ohnson: With the hawthornes we're looking at, they generally get about a 15 to 20 foot height as far as that.goes. They're a rather wide spreading tree. So they work very well for' screening uses. We 'also have along'the front space here overstory trees. Along the center islands here, we have the.overstory trees also with the mixtures of... We've Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 9 been mixing ornamentals in there so we don't have continual, the Same species throughout the parking lot. One thing's to give the parking lot a little bit more character. With the ornamentals we bring in different, in the springtime we bring in colors as they bloom and they also work well with the screening. And as far as different species in the parking lot, just...we want to avoid monoculter throughout the parking lot. But with the alternation of the ornamental, trees as well as the deciduous overstory, we get a varying heights that will help screen ou't. The ornamentals will work well with the !5 to 20 foot height, keeping as a person looks forward, out towards the building. Their eye would be blocked that way. With the large overstory deciduous tree, as your eye looks up, it's drawn upward, that takes care of the sight lines'from above. And it acts as almost a two level of screening as far as that goes. Farmakes: Are these shown as maximum crown cover with a mature tree? Eric Johnson: Right now actually these are not. The ornamentals we have drawn here have about a 10 ~oot spread .right now and with those, there'd be about a 15 or 18 foot spread. With the crabs there and the hawthornes can even get to a 25 foot. They're rather wide. These are the honey locust here. Those will get to a height of about I'd .say 35 to 40 feet. And right now with your drawing, they're showing a 20 foot crown and those will max out to about a 30 foot crown with those. They' get rather spreading also with maturity. $o this is about a 5 year type of plan showing here. These will get much larger. Farmakes: As a general rule of thumb, you're saying that these crown areas indicated here, they'd be about 30~ bigger when they're mature? Eric 3ohnson: I would say more like about almost 50~. 50~ as far as the overstory deciduous here. About 30~ as far as the ornamental. Batzli: What's the expected life of a locust? Eric 3ohnson: The locust, we've seen many mature trees, especially since these islands will be irrigated, that will definitely help in the life span. But I've seen some up to 50-60'years that have been quite large. Farmakes: There is no landscaping at all in the area to be directly to the south. There's that little strip there and then it's all open up. Your pylon sign I believe is indicated to going there.. Is that correct? Fran Hagen: The pylon sign was indicated here. When they come in for the actual sign approval, which I understand is a separate approval. I know there's been some discussions about possibly moving it more towards the west just because of the grade difference here. This road is going up so fast. They want to get it as far' west as they can so that, given that your height requirements... The reason for leaving this open, as I mentioned, part of the reason is just where can we put the snow. I know that there's been discussions about cleaning it out this way, number one. Number two, if you remember the grading plan, or I'm sure you have copies of that, this is a steep slope. 3:1 slope going down to the ponding area itself. In fact, during a high water storm or 100 year.storm, I would Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 10 say at least 50~ of that area will be covered with water. So there are a . lot of trees that would be sensitive to that kind of environment. So the trees are kept up on the be~ch. If you.'re looking at the grading plan, there's about a 20 foot area that's flat on.top of the hill. And that's where those trees are shown. Conrad: We just discussed the parking lot. You gave more green space to the bottom.. I'm not sure the green space at the bottom really counts because you're looking over it from the highway. But you compressed the parking lot. Why didn't you take that as an opportunity' to add some green space in the middle to break it up a little bit visually? In other words, take 20 feet of that green space at the bottom, run a strip through the middle of the parking lot. Maybe meander a sidewalk through that. You added the space. Why...do that? Fran Hagen: Well a sidewalk wouldn't give us the pervious surface first of all. We were trying to up the impervious. Or we're trying to increase the pervious surface of the site. Conrad: Because we were over the ratio? Fran Hagen: Well the ratio was high on this site but the total package of this with this is below the 70~ required. Margaret, did you want to address that at all as far as, we did look at that type of a layout. From a maintenance standpoint, there were some reservations on Target's part as far as maintaining the. Bill McHale: That came up with staff several times and RLK I think did draw a pictorial for Target but Target's tried this before in other locations. One specifically in St. Louis Park and they've had terrible luck with it. It's not just the volume, the lack of use. They've had a lot of problems. It doesn't handle the carts movement through, the carts through the lot. And based on not being able %.o achieve that, they thought the next best option was to expand the green area to the south. They have determined that they just functionally cannot live with a large pedestrian path through the middle of the lot. Conrad: See I'm surprised at that. You would think that that would add to this, and Knollwood is not a good example. I'm real familiar with, that's a cockeyed parking lot. Bill McHale: We're talking about St. Louis Park on Highway 100. Conrad: Yeah, that's the Knollwood shopping. Aanenson: No, no. Knollwood's on 7. Byerly's and Target. They go between the two. Conrad: Ah, okay. I'm surprised. I would think that that would add to the ability to get out to the lot. Fran Hagen: Were there any other specific questions on the landscaping? Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page l! Farmakes: On other Target stores, do you normally do on site storage off snow removal? Bill McHale: Yes. Batzli: Thank you. We may have some questions later. Margaret Fleck: Down at the bottom here I brought in what we standardly begin with when we go out on a site. It is the basic Target building. It is the basic footprint we use and exterior that has been accepted by them Target Vice President and from there wel go beyond that when required. Here in Chanhassen we've worked a great deal with the staff and of course here at this meeting previously. The building here has a 22 foot 8 height of a parapet and in doing sight line studies, we have raised our parapet to 26 foot 8 to cover all of the HVAC rooftop units and have shifted the satellite dish to the back so that we'relguaranteed that it will not be showing by any of the sight lines. The sight lines we worked with were Highway 5 at the peak. Down a little lower and then 78th Street in several areas. Batzli: Is back east? Margaret Fleck: I had to shift it back into the roof further. We normally place it, the satellite dish is normally placed very close up because of where it drops'down into the communication area that we use it for and I've shifted it back and that has, because the roof's sloping to the rear, it accomplishes having it covered with the 4 foot parapet. They're exactly flush with each other. The only way you would ever see anything on this roof, or should be able to see anythin~ on this roof now is if you're above the parapet height. Farmakes: Which would be the entire Highway 5? Margaret Fleck: No. Highway 5 is not above the parapet height. Highway ' 5, the spot elevation I took I believe was 878. 978, excuse me. I got my base number off there. And our parapet height is. Aanenson: Well the bottom elevation is 958 plus. Margaret Fleck: Yeah, 984. So there's a 10 foot difference. Or a 6 foot difference there. Our parapet is 6 feet higher than the spot elevation I'm aware of being the top elevation of Highway 5. This was an earlier sight line study that was done. I don't know whether you were ever handed one of these. I know that I did work with Kate and Paul on this. Since then we have been able to verify the. height of our satellite dish, and again I said we've shifted it so that we're assured that it does not show. So nothing should show any longer. If there's any spot on Highway 5 that goes above it, which I have not found from my topo elevations, yes. It's going to be seen but it's going to be, if anything, way back here where I'do not have topography on this point. All along my building I've got the topography and it is not above the parapet height. Moving along. What we have done is, our normal standard building does have some changes in the front but we've included more changes. One in particular is this area in here that works out as a Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 12 gateway and then also is capped with the metal standing seam rOOf. And then we've added another massing here that begins to reflect the masses on the West 78th Street side. We've also taken the two toned building we have here and with the additional 4 foot height, we worked with the lower color and then added the two color bands that we normally use on our Greatland stores. The blue and the green and then added the red up higher so that you get more break in'the building. When we're working with the projections that project out even further than the base building, we have dropped the parapet, or dropped'the wanescoat down to 3 foot 4 and that's again to accentuate that massing projecting further out than another part of the building and you'll see that here and you also see that we've used a brown band to kind of-again project that and make it pull out even further than just what you would see from the fact that you get shadows. On the West 78th Street side here you will see these masses and in working with the staff even further, we have come up with the fact that all the masses will have the legs like this and actually look like similar to entries. They'll be recessed. This projection is 4 feet so you'll have a 4 foot overhang there and we'll be putting some downlights in so that during the evening they will be lit up and this wall won't be just extremely dark. We do use some security lights and wall mounted lights to light our parking lot that would be on this side but these will be specifically to .accent these masses. Batzli: You said each one of those masses will.look like the one on the far right? Margaret Fleck: Correct. And that was something we worked out with the, oh yes, thank you. We did bring you a perspective this time.- Excuse me, and this begins to show how much the front repeats and then you begin to see what the actual massing will do at the West 7$th Street side. Farmakes: I have a question or clarification? The previous landscape drawing showed the roof elements being red. These are taupe color like they are here? Margaret Fleck: Yes, that was our intent was to use a similar color to this down here. I'm not sure why they were accented as taupe or terra cotta on the other areas. Farmakes: No, they're red in the landscape drawings. Margaret Fleck: Like a terra cotta? Farmakes: They look like red to me. Margaret Fleck: Okay. Well 'we hadn't intended on making them Target red. I don't think that that would be, they're there as elements to reflect a residential motiff and that certainly wouldn't be appropriate. We may choose to do that in some other area but I don't think Chanhassen, that's an appropriate color to choose .for. Are you interested in a particular color? Farmakes: No, I just noticed the two different colors and I'm asking which one are we looking at? Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 13 Margaret Fleck: No, it will stay the taupe or, my intention was for it to be a little bit shinier bronze color. Get a-little bit of a polished metal color to it. Almost an iodine. I can't talk tonight. Again, a polished color. It would get a little bit more reflection than you're seeing here. Batzli: What is that top treatment going to be? What's the materials in that top treatment? Margaret Fleck: Meaning right in here or are we talking about the roof itself? Batzli: Yeah. Margaret Fleck: It will be a metal standing ·seam roof. The reason you see the lines is because it will have a slight panel piece and then it · will come up as a trim piece. The one thing I haven't mentioned is the fact that at the parapet, right at the termination we'll be doing some beveling. Moving the block back and forth to give you a corbelled effect with the masonry itself. Farmakes: I just have a general question ~or you, as far as style goes. What is the reason behind the building having such a limited glass area? Margaret Fleck: We really don't need the glass. We don't display materials out on the exterior. All of our sales is in the inside and it's a reachable, sellable material. The only glass we need is the glass that we need for the entry doors and that's what we put in now. Farmakes: It's not a security issue? A styling issue? You just don't need it? .. Margaret Fleck: Well, I think there's a security issue with it also. At one point we did have a little bit more glass. This front modual here is, the longer front modual is our offices for our merchandisers that are in the store. And at one point we would have given them glass but we don't find it one, that they necessarily need it. And two, it is a security problem. It's better if we don't have those openings. We've very careful about our doors also. Farmakes: So there aren't versions of this particular unit elsewhere that have more glass? Margaret Fleck: Earlier on versions. Perhaps 5 years ago to 10 years ago or possibly stores that we have purchased and take overs we've done to stores that are already existing. Where we've just lived with what was there. Batzli: Do you have an emergency exits on the front of the building here? Margaret Fleck: Yeah, there's several of them. Well no, I shouldn't. Yeah, there's two of them. There's these two here, which will be painted out the same color as the base and these two here, which there will be a Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 14 light above those in the evening. And of course they're never intended on being used as entries. They're only exits. Farmakes: Isn't there also on your plan more lower landscaping.that's not shown here? Does that screen need more area there? Margaret Fleck: In this area? At this moment, no we had not put that in. Unless something was mentioned somewhere else that I'm not aware of. At this point it was major trees. Oh, the sign. Do you want me to show them the sign? Aanenson: Sure. Margaret Fleck: These are the two signs that will be being placed. This is the pylon sign and this is the one that will be being in placed by the one driveway. And again, they're the two tones that we're talking about here. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Margaret Fleck: Thank you. Batzli: Do you have anything else? Bill McHale: No, except to answer your questions, I think that's it. Batzli: Okay, we'll probably have some in a little bit. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission at this time? Dave Dimler: Hello, I'm Dave Dimler of 7203 Kiowa Circle here in Chanhassen. And I am presently leasing, along with my brother, Burdick's property. And I would like to address a concern that we presently have a crop of pumpkins on that land and I'm here to address the issue of the grading permit. We would like to get our pumpkin crop out this year and that would go of course until Halloween on October 31st. That's where our concern is. Is just that we can get our profits out of that. We have put a lot of time and money into getting our crop in.and we would like to see the proceeds. Emmings: Did you have an agreement with Mr. Burdick about being able to get your crop out? When you leased the land from him. Dave Dimler: The lease goes until-December 31st. Emmings: Alright. $o you've got rights there? Dave Dimler: Yes, we do have rights. Emmings: Okay. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the'Commission? Charlie 3ames: I'm Charlie 3ames. I think you all know that. Planning Commission Heeting September 16, 1')92 - PaGe 15 Emmings: Is that all you want to tell.us? Charlie 3ames: No, but you know being here tonight kind of reminds me'of the old story about the town hypochondriac that hears that there's a new doctor in town so he figures he'd better Go check this Guy out and see if this guy can tell him what's wrong with him. So the guy Goes down to the doctor's new office and there's no one in the waiting room but there's a big sign there and it says, initial consultation $150.00. All subsequent visits, $25.00. So when the doctor comes out to greet the man, the man jumps up and Goes, nice to see you again. So that's what I'm saying to all you tonight. Nice to see you all again. Batzli: I really liked the chicken and the pig one the other night'. I've been telling people that at work. They all think it's original. Charlie 3ames: First of all I want to say that I support this project and I think they've got a really Good looking building here. I'm in the development business and I'd be happy to be their neighbor. I think they've done a Good job. Really what the issue comes down to for me is, what's going to happen to West 7$th Street. And as you probably all know, I've been kind of held hostage for the last 3 1/2 years. We had a building that was approved by your Planning Commission and City Council 3 1/2 years ago and I executed a development' agreement with the City that said that that street was Going to Get built and well, I Guess we all know the rest of the story. I met this morning with RLK and this afternoon with Don Ashworth. And we're following kind of a two track approach here. We're trying to work, see what happens if we Go with the existing right-of-way that I prepared according to MnDot specifications- According to my development agreement or whether.we'd Go wit'h the realigned location as proposed on these drawings here tonight. In a nutshell my position is I don't care. I have two concerns. Number one is, the development agreement that I had with the City and my entire plat was based on driveways located in a certain position that were full access driveways. So I want to make sure that I maintain the integrity of access to my northern property. And second of all, this isn't a planning Commission issue, it's an HRA issue. I want to Get a fair price for my property which recognizes the grading, the soil correction, the architectural plans, mechanical engineering plans and so forth. So I'm flexible on either way we can Go there. Paul told me, Paul Krauss, told me one time when I was-asking what this PUD was all ab6ut. He said, I'm paraphrasing Paul here. He said the purpose of a PUD district is not to subvert the ordinance but to Get a higher ~uality product. That's there some trade-offs involved bur the net result should be that the City Gets a higher quality product. I don't think we should forget that part of this PUD is Outlot B. And the Council the other night asked'that this matter of West 78th Street be r%solved by September 28th and I agree. I would like a resolution by September 28th. I just can't be 1.eft twisting out on the wind any longer. I can't have, I understand where these folks are coming from. I empathize with them. I know why they need to Get this dirt in and let it settle over the winter. I'd like to see them Get going. But on the other hand too, if we Get so focused on letting this happen and not enough attention is paid to Outlot B, I'm Going to be sitting there for another year or God knows how long. I mean if we take the pressure off the resolution of this 78th Street issue. So I'm Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 16 flexlble on that. I'm trying to work with the parties. I think we had a productive meeting this morning. I had a very productive meeting this afternoon with Don Ashworth. He's going to the HRA tomorrow. So t guess in summary I'd just say, I'd like a resolution of this thing by September 28th. I've just got to know where I stand on this road. And otherwise Taroet will proceed and I'll be just kind of left twlsting in the wind again. So I support the project and my opinion as a developer, i think- they've done a good job on the building. Like I say, I'd be proud to be their neighbor. And I guess in closing, I'll just tell you the rest of that story. The doctor comes out and says come on in. Let me hear what your problem ls. So the doctor's thumping the guy on the chest and he goes, oh God, this is bad. This is bad' And he thumps him some more and goes, oh. This is bad. He says, let me hear you breathe. The doctor says, this is bad. And the patient says, doc what's wrong? What's wrong? Am I going to llve? What's going on here? And the doctor says, well if you just keep dotng what I-told you to do during out'initial consultation, you'll live. Thank you very much. Batzli: Can I paraphrase something you said? You don't, I think I heard you say that you don't care where the road goes but you need a I resolution. Was that true? You don't care if it's moved south? Charlie James: No, really they're HRA issues. Let me tell you what some of the issues are here. If you want to know. Batzli: Give us the Reader's Digest version. Charlie James: You guys know I can't do that. You've known me long enough. Basically if we go with this kind of' realignment here, what will happen is, where the existing alignment that we had previously. It kind of came down here like so. So I'd be getting that alignment back plus a strip here. I don't know, maybe 12 to 30 feet wide. And I guess what I would like to see here. I didn't speak up during the first Planning Commission meeting. I was trying to show my support by being here and keeping my big mouth shut. I figured it was better for me to be here and keep my mouth shut than to not be here and have you wonder why. I wasn't here. So I wish I would have spoke out about that issue about the right turn, right in thing here because that kind of .complicates the negotiations that are going on right now. But if we go with this kind of an alignment, which is fine with me, what I'd like to see is this entrance closed. I'd like to see a signal here and if Target wants a signal down here too, that's fine with me. I'd like to see. some sort of cul-de-sac come in here to serve these properties and then I'd like to .have, I had a full access point approved. This is 210 feet back from the center line from the property line. I had a full access point approved 300 feet back. So in order to facilitate this, if I'm going.to accommodate everybody here by kind of getting blown out of the water, I'd at least like to have some good access retained on my property to the north. In order to facilitate that, I'd like to see this closed. We've had some discussions with Strgar about a signal here. I understand Target works here. There's some issues here as to whether or not I'll ever be able to build a driveway here but we're talking about that. Basically my property's on a slope. Their property's on a slope. They want to lower the grade of the road so they have less of a slope into Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 17 their property but that raises the slope up into my property. $o I'm trying not to get brain damage about this. We're trying to work it out. I'm hoping we're gonna. - Batzli: Why does a right turn in and right out effect you across the'way there? Charlie James: You know in talking to Strgar, they start out with the best case scenario and then they kind of enumerate what happens there. And so the best case scenario, if I'm going to have this, is to have nothing over here. Then the next case scenario would be on and on and I think there's some sense to having this traffic coming off of a controlled intersection and according to Strgar and the conversations we've had, the difference in travel time here. Coming from this direction westbound. The studies have shown that as I understand them, most of the customers are going to come from the north and the west and from the south. They're certainly not going to come from Eden Prairie back this way. $o they're going to be entering from this direction here. So what Strgar is saying is that the travel differential and time between being able to turn here and simple going down to a stop light and turning here to get in, really is insignificant. But 'what does make a big difference for me, if I'm trying to do all this stuff to accommodate this development, is if all this traffic's coming from the west, how the heck do they get into my property up here where these two lots were where I had a driveway granted? Are they going to drive all the way down to the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre and do a U turn in their parking lot to come back? So these are just, I'm just giving you sort of an idea of some of the issues that are trying to be worked on there. Batzli: Are you looking for a full intersection then at the entrance to your? Charlie James: Here? Batzli: Yeah. Charlie James: No. I'm looking, there'd be a left turn lane there and there'd only be a movemeht to the north here. By eliminating the thing to the south, that's like the second best or you know, on this enumerated list of scenarios, that reduces...conflicts there and facilitates me having access into the land. Because I feel that to 10se that access to my land to the north is really a down zoning because then it turns it into like a destination visit like an office or something where you've got to sit there and go, get on your personal computer and go, now how do I get to this place. Now I've got an appointment at 5:00 and rather than convenient shopping. So' those are some of the'issues and I think we're starting to have some productive meetings now and I'm trying to be flexible both ways. There's some other issues that there goes some existing alignment. I want to be accommodating. I want to facilitate this development. I think it's good for Chanhassen. I think this project will give people who have never had a reason to come and even stop in Chanhassen before, a reason to come here. Shop and that,s going to help your downtown merchants. And it's going to help me and things across the street. So I support this project but I have to, you know I'm Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 18 being asked to change this. Change that. Change this, and there's only so far I can go before the negative impacts start to outweigh the positive benefits and so those are the issues that we're negotiating now. I'm hoping that in the next two weeks we'll be able to solve these issues to everyone's satisfaction. · Batzli: Okay, thank you. Farmakes: Can I ask you a quick question? Yeah, you mentioned that your marketing studies show that customers are coming from the north, west and south. Charlie 3ames: I believe that's what was Strgar did. They did a traffic study. Farmakes: Earlier they considered coming from the east. Charlie James: Fran, is that right? Didn't Strgar's study show that the majority of the traffic would be coming from, eastbound on West 78th Street from the west. Aanenson: There's a chart in the staff report. Fran Hagen: There is a chart in the staff report. Farmakes: I took that to mean from the east period. From the east on TH 5. ~' Krauss: The east on TH 5 and down TH 101. Powers Blvd. is a very minor player in the traffic forecast. Farmakes: There was a high percentage of people coming east on TH 5. Less on TH 101 and TH 5 coming from the west. Is that correct? Bill McHale: You may want to go up on the overhead and show them. Fran Hagen: This won't work on that overhead. Bill McHale: Oh... Fran Hagen: Coming from this direction, I'm sorry from Highway 5 and Powers, the total of, I'm sorry. Coming up Powers is a total of 1,071. About 300 are turning this direction. It says p.m. peak hour movement. They didn't go to Highway 5. Unfortunately, they Just show it. I don't know if this was included in your packets. Aanenson: Yes, it. was. Fran Hagen: But 78th, they have 421 at Kerber it appears. If I'm reading this correctly. 421 coming straight thru to the, or. coming, it's not saying that the destination is here necessarily. This is p.m. peaks for the entire roadway. This is not specifically one site's destination. Kerber at this intersection they're showing a total of 427 making this movement into Monterey I guess it's called when you go south of West Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 19 78th. 123 going north on Kerber and 421 going thru.that direction to the west. Coming down Kerber itself, very minimal. 88 turning turning towards the Target side. Bill McHale: How about coming off of Powers going east on 78th? Fran Hagen: That was the 300. That's all that's shown there is 300 coming around this corner here. Bill McHale: Okay, so we've actually got more. traffic coming from the east than the west. Fran Hagen: Yes. Charlie James: That doesn't jive with what's in the report here because they talk about generating 7,000 trips a day. Fran Hagen: This is just a p.m. peak count. Charlie James: Okay, but I'm saying, they're talking about 7,000 trips a day just to the Target. Somewhere in here. Fran Hagen: Right. Strgar-Roscoe, I do not believe addressed Target specifically. They were addressing all the different business districts that are along the West 78th. Am I right Kate? Aanenson: That's correct. That whole super block. Fran Hagen: That's what this report is. The whole super block. Not just Target. These numbers do not mean that 300 are making the turn at Powers and West 78th and coming to Target specifically. Conrad: Did they know Target was a factor? Krauss: Oh sure, yeah. Farmakes: So you're actually showing' more trips on Monterey during peak hours than you are showing coming east on Powers and 7$th? Emmings: That's what it says. Farmakes: I'm not a traffic engineer'but that doesn't sound right to me to a dead end street with... Emmings: A dead end street with no business except one little one. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else that would like to address the Commission? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Good evening. B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. First of all, please don't change those figures on Monterey. Now maybe Paul would help me a bit by pointing at certain items. Paul or Kate. I went along with 5 or 6 different things that I didn't care about in my purchase agreement with the HRA or the City of Chanhassen. And one of Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 20 the things that is favorable to me in.agreement is-that there should be good access between the Target parking lot and our two lots. And I just wanted to bring this up. This is part of the agreement. And .secondly, it's very important to us, we want a semifore at Kerber and 7$th. As they just said, by the way I didn't have anything to do with this report or paying for it. To route traffic on Monterey but there's going to be a lot of truck traffic there if nothing else. And we no longer want to call it Monterey. I'll bring that up again but I corresponded with Todd Gerhardt about 2 months ago about changing Monterey to Kerber. Everyone of the property owners has given me a letter saying that it's fine with them. They'd like to have it changed to Kerber. Somebody from.Market Square, Chaska Tool and Ryan Construction and Target. So I'm going to put that as Kerber. Anyway, it's quite essential to us we have a semifore at Kerber as part of this deal because as you folks can see, these two lots have been hurt quite a bit by the configuration. The configuration of Market Square which largely faces-to the east and a configuration of Target which faces to west. When they originally started doing on this, the Target store was an angle facing northwest. Whereas we finally agreed that they could turn the store so we'd actually . be behind this store so we do want these two items to offset part of this damage. That would be the very good access from Target's parking lot and a semifore at Kerber and 78th. That's all unless there's some questions. Batzli: The current way that they have the access aligned through the parking lot, you consider that adequate? You're not asking for more than what's currently in the plans are you? 8.C. "Jim" 8urdick: No, just one entrance. Batzli: But you've looked at the plans and you're comfortable with what's currently designed? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Well strangely, I probably haven't. This plan's been changed no less than 50 times. - I have about this thick on a table in my office and which is the latest one, I never know. Batzli: But that's a one way into his property isn't it? Krauss: No. Batzli: Two way? Aanenson: Oh two way, yeah. You can go both ways. Bill McHale= You can go either way. B.C. "3ira" Burdick: Yes, I'd want two way. Fran Hagen: Out of his property there's no, it's a straight up shot. Out of his property it's straight up this way because you'd be following the right side of the road and you'd be straight out. That's why we inverted so the parking comes in this way and comes out this way so it was a straight in shot to his property. And coming out of his property, again you would come in through here a~d you would have to go like that. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 21 Come through this parking and turn. It's two directional here but it's one way coming to it. Batzli: Okay. You confused me earlier. Does Mr. Burdick then gain some sort of driveway easement recorded against the Target property? Krauss: Well actually, that's a reasonably good condition for the plat. In it's entirety it's all in one PUD so we have the ability to do that easily. Aanenson: That's why we wanted to include him in the PUD to make sure that that access was maintained and he is part of that. Krauss: But it will be in separate ownership. It should have a cross access easement. As should all the lots on Outlot B. Batzli: Yeah, okay. Thank you. So ahead. Charlie 3ames: If you look on page 14 of the, I don't know if these are all sequentially, but it was the August 29th. Third paragraph it says, Strgar-Roscoe has looked at the traffic generation and completed future peak trip generations for West 78th Street and Powers based on complete development of this area. Both sides of West 7$th as commercial. Even with total development, traffic will not exceed the design capacity. The ultimate ADT for this area going south on Powers, south on Powers and east on West 78th would be 3,$30. or an increase from the current levels of 800 trips. So you're going to have 3,000 more cars coming up to the north. The projected ADT's from Powers Blvd., coming here running east onto West 78th Street would be ~0,071, an increase of 7,000 trips. This increase occurs only on the short section of Powers between Highway 5 to West 78th Street. North of West 7$th Street there will be a 10~' increase in traffic over existing levels. So that in'fact verifies this if you reference page 14. For the traffic counts. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other public comment? Mike Mason: Mike Mason, 833 Woodhill Drive. I suspect I'm speaking more as a Council member now but I' just have a few concerns. The discussion about the middle sidewalk. As I'm looking at that I'm thinking, if I was shopping at Target and I wanted to go to a restaurant, i'm not going to walk to 78th Street. Hike up there and then go back down 78th Street and come down. There is a middle sidewalk on the Target in South Minneapolis and Hiawatha so it has been done, unless it's been removed. I'm also concerned about lights and how long they'll be on. After hours, that kind of thing. Security lights, fine. I mean I know it has to be done but how much more light is there going to be in Chanhassen because of this? Also, the landscaping on West 7Bth, as I was just sitting, talking with Councilwoman Dimler, evergreens sure would be nice as opposed to deciduous trees. The trouble with deciduous is, in the winter we don't see much. 3ust on the West 78th side there. Aanenson: I think there's a mix. I can double check. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 22 Mike Mason: Yeah, and there may be enough evergreens there now but just as I've been spending a lot of time to think about this and thinking about the presentation from Monday. 3ust some concerns that I'd either be bringing up now or at the next Council meeting, so thanks. Aanenson: Could I just make a comment that we raised in the staff report to make sure that it's clear that Target has a lighting policy that's inconsistent with our's. We specifically made that a condition because that was brought up before at the Planning Commission add that's the half foot at the property line. Their standard is one foot. We did make note of that as a condition that they meet our standards for lighting. Eric 3ohnson: If I could address the issue of the evergreen trees. We. have looked at evergreen trees in the widest portion of the island. Of the areas between West 78th and the Target parking lot. The reason we do not have more is the concern for the salt spray on these coniferous. trees. The coniferous trees have a very bad problem with 'the salt spray and survival rate is rather low when they're planted close to the road. That was the reason why we did not include more boniferous trees. We do have them here at the widest point because they're able to set back ifrom the spray and their survival there, would be pretty good. Emmings: there? There's some in that parking lot just to the north too isn't Eric 3ohnson: Right here in these two. Along the parking lot area., the speeds generated should not spray the salt that much but along West 7$th, when you get the higher speeds, salt and the snow is kicked farther out. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anymore public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I'd like to start out with the sign first. I've got a couple questions about the sign. I have heard 34, 30 and 36 feet on-the pylon sign. Which one are we talking? The plans show 34. The copy shows 36 and, is the ordinance 30? Aanenson: On the PUD, no. We didn't put a specific height regulation on this because we weren't exactly sure where the placement would be and to get their visibility. That was one, we left that open. Farmakes: Okay, which one within the figures of 34 and 36? Which one's the, the sign here says 34. Aanenson: Right. I'm assuming that's what it should be. Margaret Fleck: Again, we're a little concerned to commit completely until we actually get the sign set up. I understand that there'is a specific permit that needs to go out on that. Because of the proposal, either to set it here or in here, it's a low dip point and of course the pylon sign's probably the most important to be able to visually see off Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 23 of Highway 5. With Highway 5 at the height it's at, we could end up losing 10-15 feet of that base of the sign. Farmakes: So you haven't chosen a location? Margaret Fleck: No, we haven't chosen a location or truly a height. Farmakes: Would that be taken care of at a later date? Krauss: Well actually as a PUD, it should be designated on the-site plan since the normal sign ordinance doesn't apply in a PUO unless you deem it to apply. Now in this case we've been fairly restrictive on signage. I mean we're limiting the number of pylon signs. If you go back to some of the original meetings we had with Morrish and the HRA and how. the site plan developed in the first place, we always acknowledged that Target. was going to need a fairly large single, architecturally designed pylon sign because we've got the building tucked back behind the trees we're trying to save. If you want to put a maximum, not to exceed 40 feet, I think that would be a good number. I mean they can shift that sign down on the site and see what works the best and we can work with %hem. 8ut it should be written into a set of sign covenants.that are adopted with the PUD contract. Farmakes: So your answer is, we can take care of that later? Aanenson: No. 40 feet. A maximum of 40 feet. Batzli: Shall not exceed 36 feet. Emmings: That's what it says now in the condition'that's here. 8atzli: It says they're entitled to one. Farmakes: If they have a case for changing that later, they can do that later? Krauss: Sure. Farmakes: The next question I have in regards to the sign is the color of red then. Is that the more blood red that's on the tower or is that the warm red that's on the Target's logo? Margaret Fleck: I'm sorry. Farmakes: The red that you're using here, that you're indicating here on the plans. Is that on a white plexiglass and is that a 185 red or is that a darker red that you're using in the architectural item? Margaret Fleck: ...when you say 185, you're talking. Farmakes: I've seen Target as a very bright red and I've also seen it as a darker red. Margaret Fleck: It was intended on being a bright red. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 24 Farmakes: I don't know if that's on purpose or 1t: it just happened to be that way. Margaret Fleck: ...back lit or not back lit..-. Farmakes: Is it off white? Is it bright white? Is it cream? What is that? Margaret Fleck: I believe it's bright white. Batzli: Yellows to a fine cream over the years. Margaret Fleck: Not if we can help it. Farmakes: And you're showing that as a gray, so the red pole that's described in the copy here, that's not a consideration then? Margaret Fleck: The pole being described, are you thinking of the narrative? Farmakes: I was talking about the pylon. The red pole. Margaret Fleck: ...no. Farmakes: So that then wiIi be a gray or that wiiI be t~e coior of the buiiding? Margaret Fleck: The base will be the brown color... Farmakes: Okay, so that's not as the plan that you have it there? That you're holding. Color wise. That would be a more tan, taupe, whatever. Margaret Fleck: That was... Farmakes: Okay. I'm not sure on 'the entrance. Just the questions that I have listed here based on going through the material here so for a moment if we can get out to Outlot B. When we have 50~ of the surface on Outlot B, or the buildings on Outlot B, don't we have a maximum cap then that the sign can be? Say for instance if they have no windows or whatever on the sign facing the highway, is that 15~ of the entire wall of the building? Or do we have a maximum? Not to exceed. Aanenson: We don't right now, no. Farmakes: Okay, I know Minnetonka does. That'd be a concern of mine. That we don't wind up again like with something that we have with Holiday or something. That we have a very large wall so you wind up with a very large backlit outdoor billboard. Bigger than the pylon sign. Jumping back to the landscaping and tree preservation. On the plan they show an area on Outlot A and I asked Paul about this earlier. He answered my questions but I just want to go over it so it's on the record. There is on page 15 comments as to sort of eludes that the applicant will be doing the thinning out and I want to clarify that that property is the HRA's and they will be, if not doing that themselves, contracting to have it Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 25 done. Where the property borders next to the truck delivery point behind Target, there still is a, from the tree chart a significant overflow of oaks into that area and I'm wondering, is there an agreement as to how those will be trimmed? On the plan it shows that the crown cover comes quite close to the actual impervious surface area. Is that, is there a tighter landscape version of that than what we have here? Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes, we share the concern in that area. It's kind of hard to tell with this level of plan development exactly what's happening. We've been reviewing it with an eye towards pulling things back to the minimum required. Some of this is also going to have be staked out in the field before grading work starts and we'.ll make decisions out in the field. We put in, we have a standard condition tree preservation that allows us to do that and to modify grading plans in the field. Even up to requiring small retaining walls if that works. So you're really not certainly until the thing is staked out. Farmakes: I haven't walked'through the whole thing. Is that bordered area that goes through there, are those full mature oaks? 70 year oaks or, it just shows oaks on there. Krauss: It's really mixed. I've walked it a couple of times and Pica Drive is really the dividing line between the better quality material which is to the south and the lesser quality. Although when-you view it in a distance it looks kind of'bulky and green. That stuff's to the north. Scattered in amongst it there are some quality trees that some of those are inevitably going to be lost but the better quality stuff is further to the south and again we're going to meander that lire as much as possible. Farmakes: With Outlot B, again we're going back to Outlot B. The fast food areas. Is there, it puts a limit of two in this but you're doing a PUD and the limit of 2, if Target controls that property, is that still a site application type situation where they have to still get city approval, correct? Aanenson: Correct. Farmakes: So if say a Hardee's comes in and they want to build an orange plexiglass building, is that? Krauss: You've got it tied up every which way from Sunday. I mean basically the zoning on the property will be the PUD designation with those limitations and provisions of'the PUD contract, one of which is that you're limited to two fast foods. Another of which is that the fast foods have-to be architecturally consistent with the theme'.that's established by Target and recognizing the fact that they're.in downtown Chanhassen. So if it doesn't meet those goals, you're under no obligation to approve it. Farmakes: Okay. A~d the signage for it, let's say we get Hardee's. I'm just using that as a good example. The Hardee's as it stands right now, the proposal is 15~, two sides of the building and a pylon sign for each then building? Or how many pylon. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 26 Aanenson: One pylon.sign for the rest of the outlots identifying all the outlots. So if there's four, they get one pylon sign. Then they each get a monument sign only. For each parcel, and then the wall sign. Farmakes: Okay, I'm confusing maybe the monument and the pylon sign. The pylon sign then would have a height level then of. Aanenson: 8 feet. Farmakes: 8 feet. Aanenson: Monument? Farmakes: Pylon. I'm talking about the pylon sign. Not the monument ' sign. You show pylon on, let's see. That's page 8. Staff is proposing one free standing pole sign to be permitted for Target and one on the other buildings in Outlot B. I's that then the outlot generically when you talk about that or a building? Say a Hardee's or. Krauss: I'm sorry, we were chatting. Farmakes: Okay, on page 12. paragraph, or excuse me, Finding. One for the other buildings in Outlot 8. Aanenson: One free standing sign exceeding $ feet. Farmakes: Per building? Aanenson: No, no, no. No, no, for all four outlots. One. Farmakes: For all four? Aanenson: Correct. Farmakes: Okay. Next question I have is on there's a bituminous, trail mentioned on 20. I had heard somewhere in the background that Chanhassen wouldn't be building anymore bituminous trails. I sure hope that you reconsider the Park and Rec Commission is recommending an 8 foot bituminous trail along Powers 8oulevard. The City's had really a bad record of bituminous trails. Just real'ly an awful record. It is, I certainly hope something for the City to look at to avoid using that and go to something that is more useable for people than a bituminous trail. The example that I'm using is the one on Lake Ann where there's a bituminous trail dug out and then they wound up putting in a paved surface. Everyone uses the paved surface. To go on with strollers and so on. I hope you really reconsider because that bituminous trail that the City had worked on for, it must. have been 6 years at least, never got any better and actually got worse. It was a good collection point for old shoes and beer cans when they brought in whatever fill they were using. They kept on redumping it every other year and I hope we don't wind up with something like that. And lastly, the study, the traffic study. For some reason I keep on being told tha't this has all been worked out but I just have a gut feeling this is going to wind up to be something that is what it wasn't supposed to be. And I'm looking at Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 27 these peak hour numbers that we've got here. I drive on that road 2-3 times a day and something just isn't right about, that and I'm sure there are smarter people here, some of the traffic managers or City Council people that can question that further. Something just doesn't seem right there. And having worked on some studies and, not on traffic studies but sometimes studies can say what you want them to say. I hope you look long and hard at that. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve. Emmings: What happens to Outlot C? That will become. Aanenson: That will go back to Mr. James. Emmings: Okay. As far as the discussion in the staff report concerning the development standards and you stated their position and the staff's position. I take it that I didn't compare what you'd written there with what wound up in the conditions but I take it that the staff's position on all those points made their way into the condition. Krauss: Yeah. Emmings: Okay. Generally I think it's better than it was. I don't understand what, when you talk about these, let me find the language here. They talk about the facades on West 78th'Street having back lighting. She explained that they're going to change the design of those and that there'd be some. Aanenson: Right, that's what I mean. They'll be lit. Emmings: $o the lighting that's coming down on the side though that you're calling back lighting? Just. so I know what you mean. Aanenson: Yes. Emmings: Alright. And as far as Outlot B is concerned' Somebody said something earlier about the HRA buying that. The gentleman from back here said something about that. Now I don't know what we're doing tonight, you know there are conditions in the preliminary plat approval and the PUD approval that effect what can happen on Outlot Bi. But now is there a plan to change the ownership of that so we shouldn't be worrying about that? Krauss: Our recommendation to you is not to worry about anything other than the fundamental development.concept of Outlot B, which is also somewhat up in the air right now. There's a lot of negotiating going on between Ryan and Mr. 8urdick and Mr. 3ames and our City HRA, and it should all, I hope become clear who's doing what to whom and when within the next 2 weeks. ; Emmings: But you want us to ignore that? Krauss: Well yeah. I think the thing for you to look at is how is Outlot B laid out and keep in mind, Outlot B is laid out right now based Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 28 upon a shift of 78th Street which is looking increasingly like it's going to happen. 8ut we're not. even sure of that because the City's got a role in this and we have to build 78th Street and we're not looking to engender a lot of increased cost by shifting this. There's a lot of things that will be decided by the time this'gets to 'the Council meeting in 2 weeks. Coincidentally, when this item gets to the City Council on the 28th, the City Council is also going to be hearing the, is it letting the project Charles? Or issuing the contradt? Folch: Yeah, that's correct. The continuation of the public hearing which was first held last March will basically retake place again on the 28th, or is scheduled to. The Council on Monday night passed a resolution to basically continue the hearing that night. Emmings: Hearing? What hearing? Krauss: On the construction program for 78th Street. Emmings: Oh, okay. Krauss: So all these things, and we've got that actually on the agenda before Target so the City Council's going to make the final decision. Now if some of those decisions have a bearing on what Outlot B looks like, either because of final arrangements between the property owners or because the road shifts back to where it originally was,. we've thrown a condition in here that says, within 30 days they have to bring a revised plan for the concept for Outlot B back to you for your approval. The Target site stands alone. I mean throughout all this the Target site plan itself isn't doing anything at all. Emmings: Well but the action, we're taking 'on the preliminary plat and the rezonfng, that effects all the properties? Krauss: Yes it does. Emmings: And the site plan effects, is only directed at the Target site? Krauss: Correct. Emmings: And the interim use permit effects all the property again? Aanenson: Correct. Emmings: Really it's all that's south of 78th Street. Alright. 'I understand that I guess. One objection I have, oh and then, well do you. Batzli: Steal my thunder, please. Emmings: Geez, frightening. If the two lots that are east. of the Target building, north of Pica Drive, that's included in the, not in the rezoning but in the PUD? Krauss: No, they're one in the same thing. Planning Commission Heeting September 16, 1992 - Page 29 Batzli: Yeah, they'll be rezoned to PUD. Emmings= I'm sorry, they're not included in the preliminary plat but they're included in the rezoning. Aanenson: They're in the plat. Krauss: No. They're already platted. Aanenson: Oh, they're platted, yes. I'm sorry, right. Emmings: They're already platted so they're part of the PUD but not part of this preliminary plat. Alright. 8atzli: How can you do that? Krauss: All the underlying. The description of what was advertised and the legal description for the rezoning covers the entirety of it. Batzli: I agree. Krauss: The plat only covers that portion of it outside of those two lots that Mr. 8urdick is going to continue to own. Batzli: Well you've got it set up as one motion that we're approving rezoning and preliminary plat and then you're going to eventually need to include as one of the conditions a cross license or something. Easement of the driveways which will effect that. Don't you need two motions then? One just for the rezoning which you'd include in that one condition and that'd be the plat. You'd have to include it in there. Emmings: I don't know. Batzli: Okay, I'll let Roger worry about it before the City Council. Krauss: It's a situation where we have willing buyers, willing sellers, and all of us are agreeing to do it so it's not as though the cross access easement needs to be forced onto the situation. I'd like you to make a condition that the cross access easements be provided. Batzli: Well see my concern is, in our motion to rezone, we don't have anything which indicates what we're rezoning. In our motion. 22.03 acres. It doesn't say when. Doesn't say where. Aanenson: It references the site plan though. 8atzli: 8ut the site plan. Aanenson: Includes all the. 8atzli: Okay, if you looked at the dotted lines and kind of guessed, maybe it does. Aanenson: We can do exhibits, make the two exhibits if you'd like. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 30 Emmings: Well I think you can tell from the preliminary plat plus we know... The cross easements for ingress and egress between Lot 1 in the new plat and Outlot B and also between the Target site and the Burdick property, should that be under number 1 on the preliminary plat conditions? Are those plat easements? Aanenson: Yes. Krauss: They'd be recorded with the plat, yeah. Emmings: Okay. So that's where that should appear? Aanenson: E? Batzli: E, yeah. Emmings: And then I guess the only real reservation I have is having two fast food restaurants out on Outlot B. On that basis alone I'd oppose this motion. The preliminary plat. But other than that, it seems to be a pretty good plan to me. Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: One thing that I wasn't quite clear of was the grade change on West 78th Street. Is that actually part of this proposal? Meaning will there be West 78th Street excavated that foot and a half. Krauss: WelI, again I mean that gets into, there's been a lot of previous designs with this. The original design of 7$th Street always lowered 78th Street by, 2 feet? 2-3 feet? Folch: At that one particular location. Krauss: At the main entrance into Target. The current proposal would result in it being lowered marginally further. But again those final plans need to be laid out and there's.some peripheral negotiations between Mr. 3ames and Ryan and how the sites might balance earth wise. Ledvina: Will that work on West 78th, be part of the interim use permit? Or would they propose to leave that alone? .. Krauss: No, that's a city project. Ledvina: Okay. So there wouldn't be any' road work done this year then? Krauss: Well, if the contract was let, it would be let for spring start. Folch: Correct, spring of next year. Ledvina: Okay. But the grading work will be, the grading work for this site would be done this year right? This fall? Krauss: For the Target store, yes. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 31 Ledvina: I think the modified views look really good. I think that the ...features are really going to improve the building and I'm happy to see the changes that are made. I guess we haven't talked about the walkway connecting Outlot B and I think that that should be part of the proposal. I would support the staff in desire to make that a part of this. Other than that, I don't have anything else. Conrad: Are we giving Target the exposure that, are you comfortable with the exposure you're getting on Highway 59 Bill McHale: I think that what's their concern with what the pylon. ...they realize with trees there... Conrad: I guess I don't want to hide you. I really don't. Bill McHale: They're trusting that the pylo~ will take care of that. They know that the block of trees effectively screen. That was something that staff wanted... Conrad: And we haven't restricted that pylon to the point where it's not. Bill McHale: I don't think so. Conrad: Okay. Batzli: Ladd, given the fact that they have absolutely no landscaping to the southwest of the building, we're looking over a pond. We're looking exactly at the top of the building from the road and we're looking at a couple hundred thousand square foot parking lot or something. Are you serious that you think this thing is hidden? Conrad: Coming from the east. Batzli: Okay. Conrad: And I really don't, I honestly don't have a problem with giving, you know we constantly appear at times we're trying to hide some things. I think if we do things in taste, we can do it very well and we can give the folks who are moving in the exposure. Emmings: But Ladd, you're worried about hiding the biggest-thing in Chanhassen. I don't know if you have to worry about it. Conrad: No, people will find it. Farmakes: Anybody that wants to. Emmings: Gee, where can it be? Batzli: Traffic on West 78th Street. What's planned for 7$th Street? Folch: What's currently and has been on the table for some time, at least as it relates to the portion of 7$th Street between Kerber Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 32 and Powers is to reconstruct the detachment section to a four lane, divided urban roadway with right and left turn lanes. And we hope to be able to reinitiate the process and continue forward with this project starting on September 28th's Council meeting by completing the public hearing and ordering the project, authorizing preparation of plans and specs. The other portion of the project as it relates to the segment of West 78th Street from Kerber to Great Plains Boulevard is kind of a side or sub project, if you will, of this .overall downtown improvement. That will involve, at least at this, in.the interim, reconstructing if you will the segment between Laredo and Kerber to also a four lane divided section consistent with what the new construction going on between Kerber and Powers. Basically that segment will involve moving both the north curved line and the south curved line to add additional lanes and providing the right turn lane to southbound Market from eastbound ~Bth to southbound Market. Exactly what will happen with Laredo to Great Plains, is not yet been decided. There's some ideas on the table as far as what we can do to improve the traffic serviceability in that area. Some of the ideas on the table involve some minor widening. Some median noses being tapered back to allow better turns for trucks. And overall, there's the issue of traffic signals. Strgar's study has basically provided justification for signals at least 3 intersections. That being Great Plains, Market Boulevard and also Powers Boulevard. Both the volume standpoint and an economic standpoint. But there's also unlikely to be the need to look at potential signals. I mean we have other non-volume.type needs at the intersection of like Laredo where you've got fire trucks, emergency response vehicles coming out. A lot of other traffic at Kerber. There's still a lot of things apart from the traffic signal standpoint that need to be worked out. Traffic signals are a big thing. They're expensive. It's a big change to the downtown. Conrad: Could Target move in without modification to-78th to the east of Kerber? Would you allow, having 800 cars on a peak hour coming through from Highway 101, is that tolerable? Could it handle 800 an hour? The way it is now? Folch: Without signals, that's tough. Without at least having some sort of traffic control, that's a tough question to answer. Conrad: Can it handle it with one lane as it is? Folch: So much as handling thru traffic or as much as handling, I think where the problem lies in is not so much handling the thru traffic as it is the side streets that feed the downtown. The cars that need to come out and have safe access. Have safe time intervals. That becomes a problem. The more cars you throw on the main drag. Conrad: I don't know, I think one of the bigger-problems here is traffic handling and until there's a plan in place to handle the traffic, we can make the visits to Target or anyplace, we have to be really comfortable that we have the traffic system in place. And Tar~et's a huge draw. Absolutely huge and if these are accurate numbers, I can't assess that. Obviously. Somebody hired to do this knows ~hetr job but I also know that Target draws from a huge area and will draw from a huge area and we'll just have to make sure that the systems there. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 33 Kraus$: Ladd, just to reassure you. The 78th Street construction plan as Mr. Burd£ck and Mr. Sames know have been going through evoIuttonary changes. I mean thl$ ls about the third or fourth design and through it ali it's because we finaIIy have an understanding of what's happening on 78th Street. Now when Market Boulevard, when Market Square was approved, at a staff level we became very concerned that 78th Street in front of Market Square was only two lanes. And had some reservations about even that working. Now the improvement that's going to occur with this project is one that the city wanted-to do and has ~eeded to do on 78th Street. for years. It's just going to finally get done. We have added that second lane in each direction'. There are some. Conrad: Ah, but you're talking from Powers. Krauss: From Powers over to Market, yeah. Conrad: Yeah. I'm not uncomfortable with that. .I think you have that under control. That's new stuff. I'm worried about the old stuff. I'm worried about where a lot of your traffic is coming from. " Krauss: I mean Strgar's telling us, I mean as Charles pointed out, there are some inherent design problems that I think we've all encountered in the originally rebuilt section from Laredo on over. That the turn radii are kind of tight. Some of the turn movements don't work very well and Strgar has come up with plans to improve that. Long term, by the year 2000 I think is the number that Strgar uses, the year usually uses, that other section too is going to have to be four lane. But they didn't see that as an immediate need. You need to have those safety improvements down there to make turning easier but you don't need the fourth lane all the way through.. Conrad: That's real surprising I guess. I think with Festival coming into town, they're a good retailer. Market Square. They're going to draw and you combine a Target, you're going to find out that we have traffic folks. And I'm going to...but I'm not convinced Paul. I'm really not convinced that we've got a traffic system in place coming from the east. I'm comfortable from the Powers that it's okay. 8ut I certainly am not comfortable coming from the east and I don't see a sequence right now that says hey, we're going to be able to tolerate traffic coming from the east. I'll let that one lay but powerful retailers coming in. And powerful draw from the north. Just a last couple points. I think they're doing a lot of really neat things about the elevations. I'm still not comfortable on the north elevation. Just some basic things that always bother me a little bit when you put employee parking on your main street, that bothers me. 8ut I won't, I'm not going to press that. I think some thin~s have been done, how do you break up a 380 foot wall? That's, and does it count. Whatever we do, does it count? That one I've been struggling with and I've tried to look at the elevations that came in tonight and say geez.. I've bet you I've driven downtown 20 times trying to figure out how this will look down there and how it fits in and it's just a hard thing to Comprehend, especially when we, I think what we've done so far is really pretty nice downtown. I really like how, there's obviously some problems here and there but overall it's a pretty good community feel. Then I try to sink Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 34' this in. Yet on the other hand I know what the future of retailing, is and it's of the Targets of the world that do it and so how do we sink it into the downtown area and have we done a good job? Is the question. You know it's a matter of who's paying for it and how much did we pay for it and again, does it really count? I think a lot of the design elements that Target's-put in are. real nice and I'm comfortable. I like the front elevations. I still think that breaking up the-parking lot with a green strip, a green sidewalk would have helped break up the parking lot. I'm not convinced we need to add green space to the south. That doesn't count. A strip down the center I think would break it up a little bit and I like that idea and I still feel it's important;' When you talk about a PUD, you try to connect everything and I don't know that we've really done a good job of connecting. You can get there. And I think somebody could come back and say, well people aren't going to. walk anyway. They'll use their car. Ihat's probably the truth. 8ut again, the green strip in my mind going down the center of the lot, that maybe had a sidewalk, would break up that massive parking lot. Big chunk of property. In terms of the elevation, I haven't heard anybody else concerned about the elevation. I think everybody's saying that the roof line has done it. I'm not convinced it has. but-it's tough to.sink what I'm looking at here again back with what, we're looking at a little bit different things. I think I would too like to see something breaking it up in the wintertime and I heard our consultant in terms of what an evergreen would do with the salt. spray and I know that's the case. They'd be dead but still we have to break that north up. The north elevation up and I think I'd like to challenge them to figure out how to do that. I thought there might be other ways to break that elevation up but they're all expensive ways. So I guess the bottom 'line 'is, we'~e done something where this is Chanhassen's, this is the major downtown tenant of Chanhassen and I guess I still think there's something missing from that view. I think everything else is pretty good. I like all the other things that I've seen about Target coming in. Batzli: Give me a for instance. How would you do it? Conrad: How would I do it? Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: Well I think, there's some what I say are probably costly things and I probably would have put a little bit, I don't have a real good solution. Especially when you think that there's going to be a community area across the street on 78th. At first I wanted a big plaza there. A people plaza. Friendly. I didn't Want a parking lot for employees on West 78th. Even if they took it off the blueprints, that .would have made me happier. I just don't like to see employee parking. Usually you hide employee parking. You put it away someplace. You let your real people, your customers take the higher visibility' type of parking areas. I would have made that, and I'm not sure the connection to Mr. 8urdick's property is important but I understand why they're doiDg it. That never made a whole lot of sense to me and I would have used that as a green space area I think and it's probably impractical and it's probably something that HRA would have to fund. Probably whatever I'm saying is a financial impact on the HRA. But what I was saying before was that, you've got to Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 35 put it in light of what's happening across the street when you've got a little bit of an area for people so then why do we need another plaza right by Target. So that sort of takes the wind out of that idea. I'm not totally sure what would do it right now. The broken, I guess.the only thing that I see on this elevation, the roof line hasn't been broken and that to me, that's what we did on Market Square. We broke the roof line. We paid for it but we broke the roof line. On this elevation we haven't and so it's still, we've done some things that are kind of cosmetic but it's still flat line. And that would be my only other comment on that. Batzli: Thank you. Tim. Erhart: Well it's obviously not going ~o follow my recommendation from last meeting and move the entrance to the corner or have two entrances. One facing west and one facing south right at the corner. So combined with moving the parking lot way off to the west end and $o the north parking lot could also be customer parking lot so I guess I won't go on that anymore. But I will try to answer your question because I think while we've made some improvement to the north side, I think we can go a little bit further following the theme that's been outlined here. Specifically what I would like to see is to add one more of what you call' a facade punch out so there are four evenly distributed there and then to take those and make the inside of it or the area between the two columns appear as a window display area. Now it .may not have to be real glass. It may not have displays but to give it a different, if it's just more block behind that, or tile behind that, I just don't think it's going to be viewed as breaking up the building. Yeah, there's going to be some corners and angles and a slanted roofline but I think the way to really make it work is to put glass bac~ in there and maybe back light that. Batzli: But in the secSion they showed us, if you're up on the road, or on the sidewalk, you're not going to be able to, you're not going to get. Krauss: The bottom one there. That's the view from up on the road. Aanenson: There's another one that's a better one. It shows the retaining wall. You can't see most of that parking lot. Erhart: What are you saying? Batzli: I don't know that what you're proposing would help. It depends on who you're trying to break up the view for. If you're trying to break up for people in the employee parking lot, I think you're remarks would be. Erhart: People on West 78th Street. He asks me what I'd do and now he argues with me. Okay, I'm not going to tell what I'd do after this one. Batzli: I just don't know if you have stuff down' here, windows or whatever, if you're even going to ~)e able to see it from up here. I liked Ladd's idea of breaking up, because that's what you're going to be able to see. For years until, these trees do something and this is' actually a bad view. This is the one that Probably actually... Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 36 Erhart: Well I'm not convinced that the jagged roof line is going to give you much of an improvement. I think the problem is that, well yeah. We'll make you Chairman again. My view is to see a 300 foot wall of block and I guess to me it's not the roof line so much. You know trees are only going to have leaves 5 months out of the year. Greenhouse effect keeps going the way it is, it'll only be 4 months of the year. Farmakes: So you're talking about reflective glass or dieplay? Erhart: Something. Something that it's not block or tile behind there. I just don't think, some different color or something. I think it's an improvement'to volunteer to make the second and third like the first one but as you pointed out, now you're going to make all three such that the back wall is actually further back. Margaret Fleck: ...what you're referring to these masses. Erhart: Yeah. Yeah, what's in the back of those masses? Margaret Fleck: The back or the darker color we tried to-push it back even further. Erhart: But it's still block or tile. Same material that's on the rest of the building. Margaret Fleck: Correct. Erhart: Yeah, and I'm just saying that it would look better if you would make that glass or baked enamel steel or something that would'even make it look more like a little bit like a storefront. It's a great improvement to make... Margaret Fleck: We've already dropped it, and you really do have a change in your plane and as far as, I mean we might be able to go to the lighter color here which will pull it down-even further. My concern with putting another material in there is glass, it's going to be...g.lass that breaks very quickly. It's not going to be vandal proof. There's going to be a lot of maintenance costs with that, We could go to possibly a polished tile that for three masses or four masses is goin~ to, we're really touched immediately. The lighter color, maybe even going to a smooth block rather than a rock faced block which would give you a different surface. Erhart: I'm not an architect but I'm Just giving you' some general. Margaret Fleck: At the same time, there i'$ a great deal of...so you're getting a great deal. 5rhart: Well it's certainly an improvement over the other two, the way they're drawn. And I think if we just carry it one step further and get that material on that back wall that's substantially different than the rest of the building, would probably do it. And again I'd put one more in there and make them equally spaced. You already have, what is that an emergency exit door and an employee entrance door. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 37 Margaret Fleck: We trees and...even numbers. That's why we stayed with the three. Five would be crowding the elevation. Erhart: Oh, I think five would be crowding. Margaret Fleck: And the number three really works better for breaking up the... If you start putting a fourth on here it's going to even it up, and the masses don't have any effect whatsoever. There's really a bi~ difference with a person picking up their perception on that. Erhart: I can't see that. Those are my points With regard to that. Margaret Fleck: The other comment that was made was the actual consistency of the parapet height. Ne could...height area but again that's tricky with avoiding the visual of avoiding the rooftop units. We could raise the parapet greater but at 26'8" I have a tendency not to want to do that any more than you're already there. 26 foot height is... And again, on this side perhaps they could do that. I'm a little uncomfortable...in this direction that works to actually use masses on these portions a great deal already... . Ledvina: Could you raise the facade punch outs and have that metal roof portion above the top of the building line? Margaret Fleck: We could lift it' up so that it Slightly projected above it but I wouldn't recommend it being brought even with that because again then you're bringing your mass up to the height of the other and you're not getting your variation. You really aren't getting your variation and you're getting a variation of your metal roof. Where here you needed a variation in your height itself. Farmakes: What if you had a softer scattering effect? Margaret Fleck: It really does work better for terminating this as working with it. Massing wise we played with it up higher, medium and this works the best as far as aesthetically being balanced. Farmakes: What if you had a softening effect on the areas on either side of, you're referring to them as parapets? Batzli: Yeah, masses. Margaret Fleck: These masses? Farmakes: Yeah. Now go a little more to the, inbetween there. Yeah. Up above there you have some shadowing that's caused by the curving of the block. Falsify that so you break up those masses with some shadowing. Margaret Fleck: You're saying change' the surfacing here? Farmakes: I'm talking about the visual effect when'they're talking about along 78th. If there's wide expanses of block. Flat block. Is there a way that, what you're done on the front is quite nice where you've broken up the shading with the curving of the block. Is there a way to falsify Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page-3$ that either, if not the whole building, partial so you have some shadow play on those wide, flat expanses? Margaret Fleck: Right. You've'already got shadow plays in here. Farmakes: I understand that. It's the area inbetween. As-I'm looking at the one on the front. Margaret Fleck: The curving ends up causing a great deal of projection out. we don't have a great deal of area over in there to be playing with. The 4 foot was the maximum projection. -These curves are, you'd have to follow through with an 8 foot radius. It gets to be very difficult. Again I can add another one of' these but that's about the best I can do. Farmakes: What is the project of, I don't have the. ' Margaret Fleck: 4 foot. 8ut again, I'm concerned about the balance of that as far as four of these getting... I can-certainly shift this over and break it up that way. 8ut I believe very- strongly that there was a very careful look at. Conrad: ...boring though. As much as you've tried to break it up, it's still. And a little bit of that is because we don't have landscaping projected in there. But on the other hand, we're not going to have the landscaping, it's going to take quite a while until that landscaping really starts breaking up this side of the building. Erhart: I think Jeff was'onto something. It's too bad you couldn't add those curves in there. But those require a minimum of 8 foot difference. Why did you put the curves on the west side of the building? Margaret Fleck: Those are pretty much standard... Erhart: Making that center one wider might do something for you. Making it a triple column mass. Margaret Fleck: That's a possibility. 5rhart: Yeah, that might do it. Margaret Fleck: 8ringing this out...give you some vartation...but we'll work with that. You know I hear what you're saying, that you"re feeling it's boring and largely because of this flat surface. I hoped that' the perspective could give you some of the... I also would prefer to call it, subtle and strong statement. It's not truly a-boring building. Erhart: Oh, I didn't say that. Margaret Fleck: But it's also not, we're not trying to be zooby. We're trying to be pretty subtle about our building. We want it to look stable and strong. We want it to be something that over the next-20-30 years, we don't have to do a lot of changes to and it doesn't look out dated iD your Chanhassen area, which I'm sure you can think of buildings that Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 39 have. Or do. I think it's a strong statement and I think it will last as well as anything...buildings do. Farmakes: What if that last one was just shifted over more? Do yOU find that area on the far right by the entrance where they're closer together, do you find that less offensive than the one to the left that's a farther expanse? First of all there's trees in there so this... Erhart: Can you break it up with clumps of evergreen trees planted right next to the building? - Margaret Fleck: No we can't because we show sidewalks being...fire and there's already overhangs approximately in that area. There's pretty limited space when you're talking about that sidewalk over on the side. Erhart: Right on the end, on the east end there. In fact you've shown'I think, well you've shown shurbs there but you could cut the'length, right by your hand there. One down, right there. Up one. That end of the building, you could cover up that end with evergreens and make the building look shorter. And then move that one mass over a bit. Farmakes: My eye goes to that open area between those two. But not so much to the one to the right. So if they moved that over a little bit, then you saw a little bit up above the site like, or the roof line. Margaret Fleck: ...what you're talking about this point in here?' Erhart: Yeah, in other words take what you're got room for landscaped there and really make that mass really dense evergreens. The building looks shorter. That will make the building look shorter. Margaret Fleck: Yeah, I definitely believe that needs to shift over... Erhart: Right, and then move that one over. Is that what we're saying? Margaret Fleck: ~nd then shift this one over and cross double this one... We can certainly can work with that. Conrad: Let me ask the Planning Commission something. We're all, and l have no idea... We've got trees to the south that are blocking the highway vision of the back of the building. Do we want to rob from those trees? Do we want to rob from that property? I have no idea how we do that. I know the agreements are in there but it probably-means cutting down trees there. And that footage to the 78th Street side, so you can create a green, more of a green belt. Erhart: You're talking about moving the building back? Conrad: I'm saying moving the building back. 8atzli: No. Farmakes: I think by a slight shifting you'd get the effect. If you raised those up so it broke the roof line coupled-with the trees, you'd Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 40 get more of a storefront type look to that. Break it up quite a bit. And it's deceptive to look at it because it's all opened up. There are no trees sitting there. There will be. Margaret Fleck: It's also very deceptive to look at a full elevation and think you're ever going to see it that way...especially from the depth you have in here and sidewalk. When you're visually standing here... you're going to see an expanse of about bOO ~eet is your angle of vision and maybe you'd turn and look all the way across this but it's going to... Farmakes: If you broke the roofline, the outcropping roof, how, did you look at that at all? Margaret Fleck: I'm real relunctant to do that. Partially because it means that I would have to have an absolute... Farmakes: I'm talking about playing with the roof line. I'm talking the roof elements that you have and the part that sticks out. You're talking about sticking those up above the roof line? Margaret Fleck: I do really not recommend that because one, it just doesn't balance properly... It's just not my desire to avoid doing that. The idea that you're looking for something to break it up and give it some scale in the.residential motiff. This gives a motiff of about... It just doesn't give you any benefit. It causes you greater height. Farmakes: I guess what you're sort of competing with here I think is sort of a mind set. We still think of ourselves as a small town. We're not but we think of ourselves that way. We keep on gravitating to the old small town where you have an irregular roofline. You don't have the long straight line. And to a certain extent I agree with you. Margaret Fleck: Well we're giving you an irregular roofltne. It's just you guys are concentrating on the back line behind. Farmakes: Well anytime that you get a long expanse of a linear line around here, people get uncomfortable. And as was said before, you're a big fish in a small pond. Margaret Fleck: Something we could play with is just a very minimal change to not'only the beveling, or the corbelling up but possibly one single row of block and playing around with it and taking it out but it wouldn't be extreme again. It's not something that's going to be...but even in your small town building, like a two story motel, you don't get much of... Erhart: Okay, thanks. One last thing. Like 3elf, someone who drives back and forth between the industrial park and downtown 3 times a day, I much prefer the southern route of West 7$th Street. I never could quite understand why we were making such a break to the north other than at the time the argument was that the stacking distance was required. Now apparently, how are we resolving that? I prefer the southern route. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page-41 Krauss: The currently illustrated one. Erhart: Okay, that's it. Batzli: I have a couple of'things for Kate and Charles. We have some easements here on our first motion and I thought that we needed an' easement to the NURP pond, etc. Do we have that in the conditions somewhere? Folch: That's correct. It's the easement for the pond's already shown on the plan. Batzli: $o these are in addition to the ones shown on the plan? The ones we've got right here then in condition 1. Folch: That's correct. We've-got .our NURP pond to get any sediment and stuff coming out of the parking lot. Batzli: Where's the water draining off the roof? Do we know? Fran Hagen: Yeah, three access points on the back of'tHe building. It all drains to the back of the building and it's all piped out. It's not spillways. It's all piped in three locations. Basically up in this. The exact location is yet to be worked out based on this. It will either be three or two piped directly right into the storm sewer system. The utility plan currently shows the storm sewer line coming along this side and coming down here and then they'll get into the pond. Batzli: Is the roof of the building a gravel/asphalt kind of thing? Fran Hagen: I'm sure that that's... Batzli: In our experience with these kinds of buildings, do we get any sort of oil or anything draining off these roofs? Do you know. Krauss: No. Batzli: No we don't have any? We don't.have any problem with the storm water. Krauss: You see an oily sheen on every sidewalk after the rain, no. That doesn't happen. Once the thing is dry, it adheres. Batzli: Okay. So we don't need any kind of skimmer or anything else for what's coming off the roof? Krauss: Well we're probably going to have a skimmer 'on the pond. Batzli: On the pond. I'm talking about our drainage off the roof. Krauss: Well but everything is going to go into this pond so it's all going to be going through the skimmer before discharged. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 42 Batzli: It's discharged from our storm water into the pond project- You're going from the back of the building, around the building into the pond. Fran Hagen: Correct... This parking lot has a storm sewer...The parking lot drainage would come in at this portion in right about the middle... Highway 5 and there will be a skimmer on that also...I think that's what you're looking for with the oil. Batzli: Right. When we say there's only two fast food restaurants, are we counting the one inside the Target? KTauss: No. Batzli: Okay. The submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm water, sewer, sanitary sewer, etc., condition il. Haven't they already done that? Aanenson: They may have done that, you're correct. That was mine in addition to Charles' so if Charles feels comfortable that they've met that, then you can stike that. Batzli: I mean are we expecting more? Folch: Well we'll be getting a. 8atzli: Or this apply to Outlot B I guess as well eventually, does it not? These conditions. Aanenson: Yes. It's for the entire. Batzli: $o we don't have everything for-Outlot B so this is a good condition to have here? Folch: Yeah, and from the standpoint that the applicant has submitted between conceptual and this stage here, the actual construction plans for the public improvements so that's another basic'set of documents which we approved. Review and approve. But that has been submitted. We've sent drawings back so that will also be a part of the final process. So I would say, we need. Aanenson: Well, except it applies to the whole PUD so you're right, in that respect' Target's met that but it could apply to the Outlot B too. Or Mr. Burdick's property too. Batzli: The site plan, number 14. Site plan shall be consistent overall impervious surface coverage. Does that mean that we're approving the impervious coverage that's above what we normally require? ~anenson: For that site but we're taking the whole balance meets, is underneath the 63. Krauss: What you're doing is the gross hard surface coverage is going to be well under the PUD standard. But to achieve that as sites are brought Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 43 in on Outlot A, we don't want them to exceed the total that they've committed to. So it's something that you're going to have to review and cumulatively add up as each site plan comes in. Emmings: You just said Outlot A. You'meant B. Krauss: B. Batzii: Okay. So in other words, future site pians for development ~iIi be consistent. Krauss: Yeah. Batzli: Okay. What I would like to see regarding the sidewalk issue.is, I would like to see some sort 'of sidewalk. I'd also like to see a requirement that there be stop signs and a huge crosswalk in front similar to what they've done at ~he Cub store in Minnetonka. Stop signs on either side of the entrance. Big crosswalk. Krauss: Oh yes, okay. The Cub does that regularly.. I know what you mean. Batzli: Yeah. I would like to see some sort of pedestrian, I mean we've done a lot of work on a lot of things but one thing they haven't done anything on, in my opinion is handling people within the site, unless you count walking up and down the aisles between parked cars handling people. Maybe that's not important to us. Maybe we don't care. Maybe we're trying to get people to walk or not walk from store to store. But the whole concept of our downtown I thought was to avoid having a group of little mini-malls next to.each other that you get in your car and drive and it's supposed to be conducive to walking. I don't see that we've made this conducive to walking at all. Aanenson: I did leave it as a condition. So it's in there as a condition even though it's not reflected on the site plan. Batzli: Yeah, well but the applicant is saying they're not going to do it. And we haven't really talked about it much other than we're saying yeah, we like it. Aanenson: I said they have to do it. That's .in the conditions so we're expecting, before we sign off on it, that be shown on the site plan. Unless you take it off. Batzli: Well yeah, I know. Pedestrian access, I mean I can meet your condition by putting in a 6 foot sidewalk from the edge of their parking lot to the outlot and I've met your condition. Aanenson: Right. 8atzli: And I don't think %hat we handle the people. I don't think they handle the people from the sidewalk up. on 78th Street to the. front of their building very well. And I don't think they've handled the people through the parking lot. And I imagine, what I'd really like to have - Planning Commission Meeting Septem er 16, 1992 - Page 44 them do also is put some, a little cart racks in their parking lot. They're probably going to lose parking spaces though so they can't do that but I always crash into their carts in the parking lot. But anyway. I'm very cynical that this thing is hidden. I think we've hidden a wall that deserves to be hidden. I don't think we've hidden them. I noticed quite cynically that they., haven't put any landscaping to the southwest and they thought of a very good excuse not to have to do that. Since nobody else complained about it, I won't complain too much but we have a very broad expanse there where they're highly visible. They' are a big building. They have a huge parking lot.. We're up above grade a little bit there from the highway and that concerns me. People are going to see them. Aanenson: Where the retention pond is? Where we want to get access to? Batzli: Yeah. The retention pond. $o there's not much landscaping between the corner of the, southwest corner of the building all the way out past the retention pond area. Aanenson: In here? Batzli: Yeah. There's no landscaping as far as I can tell. I'd like to see, as part of them looking at the northern part of the building, I guess I'd like to see them maybe try and throw some more evergreens into the employee parking. I think they've only got four of them in there. And that may help also but if we're going to play around with it as a whole unit of looking at those masses and looking at the trees and from the sounds of it, they're willing to look at that and juggle it a little bit more. So I don't know if we can say much more about that. None of us has really spoken about the request we had to delay t'he grading until October so they can get their pumpkins out'. I don't know how anybody else feels about that. Emmings: Well, if he's got a crop in and he's-got a lease, my recollection of that is, once you put a crop in, you've got a right to take it out and that'd be a private matter between him and Mr. Burdick. If he doesn't get his crop out, he's going to, whoever takes it away from him is going to owe him for it. Batzli: The lighting policy of the parking lot and things like that, we've in the past, it seems to me, required people, gas stations and such, to not have their signs lit after certain hours or things like that. Do we have any control over that here? Do we care? Do we want them to light their whole parking lot all night long? Have We talked about that with them? Aanenson: It's my understanding that they put in their narrative that they do have timers on some of those and if you want to be more specific, we can put that in. Batzli: I don't know, one of the comments by our concerned citizens was that we avoid putting too much light in our downtown area. The thing that I saw was a limitation on the strength of the light at the edge of the property. Not a curtailed, you know for security purposes, I don't Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 45. have a problem with them lighting things that have to be lit. I also understand there will probably be people working at night to restock. I don't know exactly what their policy is but I don't want to make it unsafe environment for those people coming in and'out from the employee parking lot or so that vandals start spray painting the side of their building or something. But I would, I don't know that they need to light their whole parking lot and I don't know if that's addressed. And I don't know if it needs to be addressed or if Target has a policy that they do or don't do it. I don't know. Aanenson: Sufficient lighting for Security. 8atzli: Paul, on these types of conditions, do we normally tie any of them together? Krauss: Mr. Chairman, in this case it's, I mean normally we do yes but this, everything is being packaged up into a unitary PUD contract in this case. It will be taken care of. 8atzli: Trust me. Okay. I like what they've done on the north side of the building so far. I think if they do a-little bit more, I think all of us are going to be pretty pleased with the results, or I sure hope so. I think they're going to be a good addition to the city. My last comment was on the Mr. 3ames' concern about closing the right-in/right-out. I think that would be detrimental to Outlot B but on the other hand, he does need access to his property to the north and if we're lowering the grade of the road at the main entrance to the Target, does that in fact make it too steep to get into his property? Do you know CharLes? Folch: If the north, if Mr. 3ames' property is left at it's current elevation, yes. It would make it too steep.- Some sort of modification, either to the elevation or to the access location.would need'to be looked at. Batzli: Don't we want intersections that are directly across from one another? Folch: That certainly helps to concentrate them that way. You can coordinate and control them with traffic control devices, yeah. Batzli: But if we go any steeper at the entrance to the Target, do we have a problem with ice in the winter or people not being able to make that grade at the traffic light if they stopped at the light and then trying to get going again? Is that the concern? Folch: Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. We wouldn't, from staff's point of view, we wouldn't want to see the entrance into the Target site any steeper than it is now. Now would we want to see it potentially any- steeper into the 3ames property. On the north side. So we're hoping that this issue can somehow be resolved between the two property owners and/or with our help in any way that we can do that but we're certainly hopeful that the property owners can work this fill elevation situation between themselves here. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 46 Batzli: But with the current way we're going to develop 78th Street, with the improvements, are we making the problem worse to get into his property? Are we lowering it right now? Folch: The current plans would lower the road about a foot and a half and I believe the Target proposal is looking to lower it another foot and a half so a total of about a 3 foot difference. Batzli: Okay, but right now on the plans it's a foot and a half. Folch: That's correct. Batzli: Does that make it a problem to get into Mr. 3ames' property? Folch: I don't know. I guess I'd have to ask Mr. 3ames. If his engineer has responded to that or not. That was the plans that, that is based on the plans that we've had on the table for about a year and a half and it hasn't been until this proposal has come up that I've heard that it was a problem. Batzli: Okay. Those are my comments. If there's any other discussion or a motion. Conrad: I just have another comment. What's our sign ordinance say in terms of signage on a building? How many wall signs can we have? Aanenson: What we're recommending for this one is they.have one pylon sign. We said a maximum of free standing sign, maximum 36 feet in height. And then they'll have one, low profile sign 8 feet in height and they'll have one wall sign facing Powers Boulevard. Conrad: What could they, based on our sign ordinance? Aanenson: Have an additional wall sign on the West 78th. Conrad: I keep looking at the 78th Street side and nobody, my impression is nobody lives here and it's like I'd like to have a signature. Batzli: You mean like a Target sign? Conrad: Yeah. I don't think I've ever asked for more signage but again, I guess I'm still struggling .to make the 7$th Street side friendlier. And maybe the pylon sign will help do that. Or the monument sign. I don't know. Batzli: Where's the monument sign go on there? Aanenson: I was just informed that they also want to put a pharmacy sign. Batzli: They want to put a who? Aanenson: ~ pharmacy sign. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 47 Margaret Fleck: It's 2 foot high and 20 feet wide'. Batzli: Where do you put that, on the front of the building? Margaret Fleck: On the front of the building, right in here. Batzli: So you go in the emergency doors to get there? Margaret Fleck: Well no, you don't go in the emergency doors but that's advertising and it just happens to be located in that module. Batzli: I'm just being silly, I'm sorry. Farmakes: Wouldn't that be inconsistent with'what we do? Aanenson: Pardon me? Farmakes: That'd be inconsistent with what we do? Aanenson: Well we say 15~ of the wall area. Farmakes: That's advertising'...instead of the name of the retail operation. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of putting hot dogs or a cold beer? Emmings: What kind of hot dogs? Farmakes: I guess I've never found signage to ever make a building more friendly. Conrad: But 3elf you wouldn't like to see the 7$th Street side? Farmakes: It might be more informative but I don't know if it would make it more friendly. So I agree with some of what you're saying. I don't know if it's a positive versus. We'r.e trying to make it look nicer. I guess another tree might be, get my vote versus another sign. Batzli: Does the Ridgedale store have a sign on the north side of the building? It does doesn't it? Sort of a rectangular'one'. Krauss: It faces Highway 12, yeah. Farmakes: The one thing that worries me about putting superfuious signage on a building like that is you obviously stock a lot of different things. And it's pretty common knowledge of what's in a Target. Margaret Fleck: A pharmacy's unusual for the Target. Farmakes: All the ones I've been to have had pharmacies. Margaret Fleck: Only in Minnesota and it is a necessary. In fact, not all the stores in Minnesota will necessarily have them. Smaller mar-kets do not have them. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 48 Farmakes: You"re seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this Target? Margaret Fleck: Pardon? Farmakes: You're seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this Target? Margaret Fleck: No, but it's just to our advantage. Pharmacy is a fairly unique thing to have in that store. Farmakes: I'd be against any additional signage at all. Batzli: Is there a motion? Erhart: Is this number 22 conditions on the first one.. Does anybody have any changes other than the time? I mean we talked about a lot of ideas here. Emmings: Yeah, to add the easement is l(e). Erhart: Is l(e)? Emmings: Yeah. Erhart: Can you make the motion? Emmings: Yeah, I can. I'll move the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres of general business to PuD and preliminary plat approval as shown on PUD #92-5 subject to-the conditions in the staff report with the addition of a condition that will be Those would be cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target parcel and Outlot B on the one hand and the Target parcel and the Burdick property to the east of the Target building on the other hand. And as long as it's my motion, I'm going to say that, I'm going to change number 12 so there are no fast food restaurants permitted in Outlot B. Now that's the end of my motion. Batzli: Is there a second? Erhart: Help me. Your problem with fast food restaurants are, is it the food? Emmings: No, no. I go to them and I don't mind them. I'll tell you where I think they belong is right back there on Monterey behind the Target building. In.fact I've advocated that for years that that be a strip of fast food restaurants. This is one of .the most prominent sites in Chanhassen and I wouldn't even-care if they had some fast food restaurants if we can mess around with the design of the building a little bit. I'd like not to see drive thru's. I don't mind fast food. I wouldn't mind a fast food restaurant out there like an Arby's. Conrad: What do you want there? Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 49 Emmings: I don't want to see a Target and I don't want to see a Burger King. ' Erha~t: You want close architectural review of those? Krauss: You have that. They're going to have to be built. Emmings: Here's my problem. You can argue with me all you want. I'm not going to change what I said. You can vote it down. If you say there's a maximum of two fast food restaurants, there will be two fast food restaurants. I'm sure of it. Erhart: You don't care as long as you have strong architectural review. Emmings: Yeah, and I might not want it then too. 8ut other than that I could be talked into, an Arby's that was built right, even a McDonald's that was built right. I don't know about drive thru but this is such a prominent site, all traffic from the west, this is the first thing they see of downtown Chanhassen and I sure don't want to look at an ugly buildings. And most of those buildings are not the kind of thing I'd want to see out on that corner. So that's my reservation. I don't mind fast food restaurants. Erhart: Maybe item 12 ought to, instead of dealing with fast food, the term fast food restaurants at all, maybe.item 12 ought to deal with architectural review of those restaurants in Outlot 8. Aanenson: We have that in there. That's already in there. Erhart: Maybe you should just strike 12. Emmings: Yeah, that'd be fine with me. Just take 12 out. Krauss: I should tell you that 12 is already written into the purchase agreement between the HRA and the. Erhart: But there's a little bit of implication there that McDonald's could come in with their standard design. Krauss: No. There's no question they can't. Aanenson: No, we changed the zone. Krauss: I guess, we took, when we drafted up these Original agreements, we put the expectation that if nothing was done the probability would be all 4 or 5 or 6, depending on which plan you had, were going to be fast food. And came it from the standpoint that 2, while we felt' it was reasonable, could well be perceived as being pretty onerous for the developer but we felt that that was consistent with t. he quality of development that we wanted to see there. Farmakes: $o there potentially would be a total of 6 signage. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 50 Emmings: Well why are we asked to pass a condition that's already part of another agreement? I mean this is just **. Krauss: Well, you modify your, I mean the HRA condition is a part of, well the HRA authorized the purchase of the property from Mr. 8urdick and the resale to Ryan and to do that, there were sets of conditions'like everything is going to be done as a PUD so you can review it that way. Things are going to be architecturally similar and consistent with downtown. Just general terms so there's something to hang the development on. And in doing that again, we threw in the thing about the fast foods and we approached it from the completely opposite end. Is that again we had an expectation that if we did, weren't up front about this, we would wind up with all the outlots being fast food. Emmings: Well I take it we don't have to worry about that because it is a PUD and we can control that? Krauss: As long as there are appropriate conditions in-there, yeah. Emmings: Well, now that just confuses-me because if it's already, is it already a condition? Batzli: Does that condition run with the land? They can't do it anyway no matter what we put in this? Krauss: That they can't. Emmings: It seems to me that's all written. Krauss: You can probably further limit it. I mean I supposed you could further limit it. You couldn't allow 6 is what. Emmings: Well, I don't know. If this isn't in here, what posture are we .. on? Krauss: Well. Emmings: Or let me ask another question Paul. I told you what my concern is. Is the prominence of the site and I don't want to see standard buildings there but you're telling 'me we've got lots of architectural control over it. If McDonald's comes in and says we want ours right out on the corner, are you telling me we'll be able to tell them you're going to have to build it to look like all our other buildings in downtown? Krauss: Yeah. Aanenson: We said, they ail have to have pitched roofs, etc, etc.. All the standards that we just built in this whole PUD, Emmings: And no arches? Or little ones. Or little ones with pitched roofs on them. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 51 Krauss: You have the latitude to do whatever you want within reason with the architecture and we fully expect and it's written into here that it means that when Hardee's comes up with orange building 37, you say go to South Dakota. You're going to build it, and frankly most'of the fast food operations these days are sophisticated enough to koow that they build to the style that's being requested. And we wanted to lay out enough parameters so they know what we were looking for. Emmings: Could we tell them if you want to have people come in and sit down and eat or come in and take out, that's fine but you're not going to have drive thru. Could we do that? Krauss: Theoretically you could do that but the business is such that the drive thru is the business and they go hand in hand. Farmakes: How do we define like let's say a Bakers Square? They have' drive thru for some food items. Is that defined as a fast food? Krauss: The issues are blurring but Bakers Square serves through waiter service. At tables and that's their primary. Farmakes: So that's how it's defined then? Krauss: That's a standard restaurant and we do, the ordinance does define the difference between standard and I believe they call it convenience food restaurants. Farmakes: Where you could still have a drive thru if you have.waiters? Krauss: Presumably. Erhart: I don't think there's any harm in making item 12, 'that all future buildings will meet some kind of architectural standards and we don't know what they are today but. Aanenson: That's what they are right here. we spelled them all out. The colors that you can use. The screening. The lanscaptng. Everything. The lighting. It's all spelled out for this whole development. Emmings: 15. That applies to everything that's in this one applies to everything that goes into the PUD. Even off the part, even on the Burdick part. So maybe it's alright. Erhart: Well, it's your motion. I'm just trying to. Emmings: Okay, well maybe I'm over reacting a little bit here. What do I do now? I made my motion. Batzli: No one seconded it yet. Your motion is dying on the vine. Emmings: I don't know. Conrad: 3ust withdraw it. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 52 Emmings: I'll withdraw my motion. Thank you Ladd. Batzli: I'm sorry, did you amend your motion at all? Emmings: I withdrew it. Batzli: You withdrew it? Emmings: If you'd pay attention. Batzli: We were trying to correct another informality here. Another condition you had totally ignored. Farmakes: ...train of thought when you were crescendoing. Sorry. Erhart: Okay, I'll make a motion that's exactly the same as Steve's motion but leave item 12 in as is. Change item 20 to read, concrete. That's it. Any second? Emmings: Now wait a minute. Change 20 to read what? Erhart: 8 foot concrete trail. Aanenson: Instead of asphalt you want concrete? Erhart: Is that what you want Jeff? Farmakes: Pardon? 5rhart: Isn't that what you want, concrete trail? 5tamings: But isn't concrete harder to maintain than asphalt? Farmakes: I'll tell you, I've lived next to, I think the only bituminous trail in Chanhassen and it's a disaster. It's now grown over along with the beer cans, the old socks. Erhart: This is essentially, this is going to utlimately be a sidewalk isn't it? Krauss: When we say bituminous, we mean paved with asphalt. Farmakes: It was described to me as a bituminous trail that is, when I was involved with the Park Commission, bituminous trail is a chip trail. Erhart: Oh no, no. Batzli: Asphalt. Farmakes: Okay. Erhart: Leave 20 as is. Call for a second. Farmakes: I'll second it. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 53 Batzli: Discussion. Farmakes: Can I add one thing? Batzli: Go ahead. Farmakes: On 17, is the site, should that be outlot site? Or it just says site. It doesn't say building site. Aanenson: Each parcel. Each separate parcel. There's four parcels in those outlot. 8atzli: Well, do we know there's four parcels in the Outlot?. Aanenson: We don't know. As long as they can meet the standards. Krauss: Well no, I think though Commissioner Farmakes is correct. The intent was that there be, are you talking about the pylon? Oh no, that's correct. I'm sorry. 8atzli: What's a site? Krauss: Each parcel. Aanenson: Yeah, I think parcel would be a better way. Batzli: So currently there's one outiot. Aanenson: We're not talking about the outlot. We're calling the individuals parcels within. The four~ 'if it's four. Farmakes: Okay, it says each site and in the same sentence it says, into the private site. Is that delineating that there's'a difference between a private site and a site? Aanenson: No. Same thing. Batzli: I'm confused. What four sites are you talking about?- Krauss: The conceptually illustrated ones on the outlot. 8atzli: So we're approving those today? We're not approving those? Aanenson: No, no, no. Krauss: You've approving the development concept, the layout of how that thing's supposed to work. Batzli: I thought you told us we didn't have to worry about that Paul. · Krauss: Well what I told you is that, if the roadway changes, we have to bring that back to you. As each development comes in, you will be looking to review the site plan on each individual one. But we need a framework to hang it on and that framework 'is where should the road go, PIanning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 54 and that may be modified. And what kind of, architectually what kind of context it is and lighting scheme and that kind of stuff. Batzli: The road into the outlot we're approving tonight. We're approving the concept that there's four sites within the outlot. Is that all we're approving? Krauss: That's right. That's it. Batzli: Is there a condition that says that somewhere? Krauss: It's on the plan. Aanenson: We've approving the plans, as they're shown. Batzli: Well on the plans there's buildings. Proposed building pads for christ sake. Krauss: That you're not but the basic layout, yes. Batzli: I hear a lot of, don't worry about it but -I'm worried. Farmakes: Does this signage that's worked out, four pylon signs. Four wall signs. Krauss: Two pylon signs. Farmakes: Two pylon signs. Okay, so the site refers to Outlot A and B? Krauss: No. Farmakes: What? You've got me totally confused. Aanenson: 18 says, Target gets a free standing sign and the Outlot B gets a free standing sign. What 17 says is, each site, if there's four, they each get a monument. If it's five, they each get a monument. What we've approving tonight is four. They're showing four proposed. Farmakes: Okay, so there's two pylon, four monuments and eight wall signs. Is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Farmakes: Excuse me, I'm leaving out the monument sign on Target and their wall sign. $o add one to each on those. That's five and nine and two pylon signs. Emmings: I don't know that we're, we're approving two pylon signs. We're approving a monument sign for each site and then the rest of says, signs are sub3ect to standards of the sign ordinance. $o whatever. Farmakes: I was 3ust confused on the total. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 55 Conrad: We spent 2 1/2 hours on this and the one change, what change did you make? Erhart: Item (e). Conrad: We've essentially done, okay. Everybody's comfortable with the traffic issue? And we haven't really told staff or anybody to do anything in terms of the 78th Str-eet elevation. · Batzli: I quite honestly don't think that staff knows what to do with it. Conrad: I just want to make sure everybody knows that we haven't said, with the motion that's there, we haven't said anything about traffic. Everybody's comfortable with traffic. Erhart: I don't think so but I don't think this motion has'anything to do with traffic. Batzli: Traffic is going to be the site plan review. The next motion isn't it? Conrad: You're rezoning which means that you're rezoning it to a use that generates traffic. I'don't know if the site plan. Batzli: I don't know either. Erhart: We want Target here. We tike the site and we're going to have to deal with the street design'and I agree. Maybe this traffic study needs to be reviewed. I'm not going .to change the site plan for that. Emmings: They're telling us they've done the traffic study and that it works and I sure don't have any way to...with that. Erhart: All we can do is review it. Folch: Basically you're going to have both these projects tracking simultaneously. Outside of the grading work, which is proposed to be done this year, both projects a.re going to be occurring simultaneously for the most part next spring and summer. Aanenson: I think Brian may have a good point though. I think you could make a condition on'number 8 that they, that under the site plan that, we added one already about a crosswalk but you wanted, so under Site plan. 7 would be a crosswalk with stop signs in front of Target. Number 8 may be that these projects track together as Charles just mentioned. The West 78th detachment study and Target proceed together. Emmings: And that'd probably be- the place too to Ladd, to talk about that north elevation. Because that site plan deals strictly with the Target. Conrad: Right. Absolutely, that is the plan. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 56 Batzli: The condition I guess I'd like to see added to this particular motion is that, condition 23. That our approval tonight is not an approval of Outlot 8 as depicted or development of Outlot B as depicted on the site plan other than to locate the road and the number of sites, limiting the number of sites to four. Aanenson: Do you want to add each site must come througth site plan review? Batzli: Yeah· Who seconded the motion? Emmings: Well, you're amending it. Er hart: Yeah, I agree with that· Emmings: You're going to amend your motion, I'll second that. Batzli: it? It was a friendly amendment. Do you want us to actually vote on Emmings: You're the chair. Batzli: Okay, it was a friendly amendment and you guys both agree. Okay, any more discussion? Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres Of. BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat approval as shown in PUD #92-5, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plat easements needed: a. 20 foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of proposed watermain. b · C · 20 foot wide utility easement over existing 18 inch watermain through Outlot 8. 30 foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer through Lot 1. d. 30 foot wide utility easement over existing 8 inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot 8. e. Cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target site and Outlot B to the east and between the Target site and the- Burdick site to the west. . · The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements· The applicant shall be responsible for Obtaining all required agency permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 57 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost-sharing formula has yet to be determined.) · If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnDot and carver county and the applicant would be Tesponmible for performing all necessary soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. 6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B. 7. Vacation of the existing West 7$th Street. 8. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. . Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development. Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and landscaping. 10. Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including store sewer, water and sanitary sewer. 12. Only two fast food restaurants are permitted. 13. Approval from MnDot, Carver County Traffic Engineer and the City shall be secured to relocate West 7$th Street. All site plan shall be consistent with the overall impervious surface coverage. 15. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through color block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces/outlots shall be landscaped or covered with planting and/or lawn material. 17. Each site shall be allowed one monument sign near the driveway into the private site, walls signs on not more than 2 street frontages. The signs are subject to the standards of the sign ordinance. 18. Target and Outlot B are each allowed one free standing pylon sign. 19. Lights shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 58 20. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers 8oulevard. 21. 22. 23. All development in this zone is subject to all the standards of the PUD zone. If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected, a revised concept plan must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request. This approval is not an approval of the development of Outlot B as depicted on the site plan other than to locate the road and the number of sites to four and each site must come throuoth site plan review. All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion Carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Conrad: I don't believe the traffic issue on West 78th St'feet to the east of Target has been resolved. Batzli: Conrad: Batzli: Conrad: I'm sorry, on West 78th and to the east? To the east of Target. On Monterey? On West 78th. Moving on we have a site plan review motion. Batz 1 i: take a crack at that one? I think we've perhaps got a condition 7. don't remember, what was your condition 7? Somebody want to Emmings: Well, should we also be tracking it with development of the James property at least insofar as we're sure we're not giving him, or don't we have to consider this? At least in terms of access points. Krauss: That's going to have been resolved by the 2$th. Batzli: Trust me. Krauss: Trust Charles on this. one. Aanenson: Tracking this with the completion, of West 78th, the street. So Target doesn't open before the street's there. Erhart: 8 was what? Batzli: So that would tie in with making sure there's access to the James property? Aanenson: Crosswalk with stop signs in front of the store. Number 8 was, just track the completion of the West 78th detachment project. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 59 Folch: Yeah, if we get ali the parties together on this, I think we can. Emmings: And then 9 was going to be, well whatever, the wall. The great wall of Chanhassen. Batzli: Number 9 is going to be the wall. Emmings: You've got to do this one Ladd. Batzli: He's going to oppose it again. He wants to get his little points on record. I can see it coming a mile away. Okay, anybody want to make a motion? Please. Conrad: Just a quick comment. On 5, the Wall sign shall not exceed 15~ of the wall face. Why do we have that in there? That's our Standard anyway. Aanenson: Do you have the dimensions on that wall sign? We can just plug those in if they have them already. Krauss: That would be preferable. Emmings: Well, shouldn't we be saying the wall signs won't be anything different than they appear on the plan? Aanenson: They're 6 foot x 34. We can put that number i'n. Emmings: Wall signage shall, well we should just take that out. The wall signs are on the plan. Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan ~92-2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992 with the 6 conditions as outlined in the staff report, with deletion of the last sentence in paragraph 5. And add condition number 7. That a crosswalk with stop signs will be added. Is that enough? Emmings: In front of the entrance? Erhart: In front of the entrance, yeah. Okay. Condition number 8. Tracking this with the Charlie James property. Is that? Aanenson: With the West 78th. Erhart: With the West 78th as Kate has worded. And number 9 is to review to improve the appearance of the north wall consistent with the comments and discussion at the meeting tonight. Emmings: I'll second that. 8atzli: Any discussion? Do we want them to review their or control'the lighting policy of the parking lot? Or improve condition number 4. Is anybody else interested in doing that? Emmings: I guess not. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 60 Batzli: Nope? Okay. It will be raised at Council again I guess. That's okay· It's kind of late in the game to raise it. I thought since one of the Council persons got up and spoke on it, we might want to at least take a look at it. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #92-2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of the PUD #92-5. 2. Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot 8. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the length of Nest 7$th Street. 3. The three facades shown on Nest 78th Street shall have back lighting. 4. Lighting.shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line.- · Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with a 6' x 6' foot sign area and for the pylon sign, 36 feet in height and not exceed 144 square feet in sign area. The monument sign and free standing sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted in the September 9, 1992 site plan. 6. The development shall comply with all development standards of this PUD zone. 7. A crosswalk with stop signs on either end' will be added in front of the Target entrance. 8. The Target and the Nest 78th Street Detachment project shall track together through the process so they are built simultaneously. Review the site to improve the appearance of the north wall facing Nest 78th Street consistent ~ith the comments and discussion of'the Planning Commission. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Batzli: I'd take a look at the lighting of the parking lot. I don't want them turned on full blast all.night. The next we need to pass a motion on the interim use permit to get the grading done. Does anyone have a motion here? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992 and subject to the staff conditions i thru 8. Emmings: Second. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 61 Batzli: On condition 5, is there a typo? Is the word and, should that be an? I was just confused. I mean it's a small point. Aanenson: Submit a? An administrative fee. 8atzli: Okay, so they're submitting an administrative fee and letter of credit, okay. What's the difference between an administrative, so the fee is the city fee? Aanenson: Correct. Erhart: Number 8. It says the City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of trees and location of snow fences. What does that mean? Krauss: Well, it's kind of a standard condition.we have. Erhart: What is location of snow fences? Aanenson: Defining the lines of grading.. Krauss: We require that they be marked. The no cut area. Erhart: Alright, so you're going to define the line by the installation, okay and location of snow fences. Okay, that assumes you understand that we're putting in snow fences to delineate that. · Krauss: They're putting them in, yeah. Batzli: Do we normally have a little condition that talks about erosion control. Is that in here? Aanenson: It's part of the Watershed approval too. Batzli: That's Watershed? Krauss: Well no, we normally have our own condition. What's unusual in this case is the Watershed District reviewed it before we did and had the same conditions we would have supplied. Folch: Actually, the erosion control that was shown on the plan,'we" didn't require any additional e~osion control be placed on so if you're approving the grading plan with this, that erosion control is sufficient. Batzli: Okay. Any further discussion? Ledvina moved, Emmtngs seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and/or drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer-systems will not be constructed until next spring. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 62 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles. 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limtied to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as Watershed District. 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. 8. The City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of the trees and location of snow fences. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONINS ORDINANCE AHENDHENT TO AMEND $[CTIQN-2o-1023, HEI~'HT OF FENCES AND SECTION 20-1019, LOCATION OF FENCES, Conrad: 'Mr. Chairman, I've got to bring Steve home. Emmings: You know, we could make a motion on this next one. Aanenson: We've got a big agenda next Week too so tabling's not going to help. Farmakes: Let's get it done. Erhart: I move it. Krauss: Could you also open and close the public hearing. 8atzli: This is a public hearing? I open the public hearing. I'd l~ke the record to show that there's no one here from the public that wants to comment on our Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Does anyone have any comments on this? Ledvina: No. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 63 Batzli: I have comments on this. I hate this. I 'don't think it's· ' necessary. I don't know why we're doing it. I'm going to vote against it. Anybody else have any comments? Erhart: Why did we start this? Emmings: You hate this? Batzli: I live on a corner lot. I don't like it. Emmings: You want people to build 6 foot fences in their front yards? 8atzli: I don't care if they do. Erhart: What initiated this ordinance review? Aanenson: We've had people request to do that. Krauss: Over the years it's caused us problemS. People have blocked sight lines. We never had any regulations about it. People have asked questions about it. Batzli: Look at the guy across the street from me in a PUD that has about a 10 foot, you know he's as close to the road as he can be. He needs a fence and this wouldn't allow him to do it and you're asking him to sit in the middle of the road on cor'ner lots in a PUD when they've got a small lot. Erhart: He bought the lot. Batzli: Well yeah. Mr. Liberal. I think this is. totally unnecessary. If they're going to do it, they're gonna do it on a case by case basis. If you want a personal attack. I think this is intrusive. It's unnecessary.. If we're going to do it, We should limit it a little bit more to close to the intersection or whatever you're really trying to protect here. The sideyard of a corner lot in a PUD, well what in essence would be a sideyard but it's sometimes a front yard, I think this is too intrusive into that. If you guys want to go look at a fence before we act on this, I would encourage it. To go look at the fence right across from me on Fox Hollow Drive and take a look. See if you hate that fence. It's more than 3 feet. And it's necessary for him to use his back yard at all. He has no back yard other than the area that's protected by the fence. Otherwise he's minimum distance away from the other house. Minimum distance. 5mmings: This doesn't prevent him from building in his back yard... 8atzli: It would be along what's considered the front yard because it's a front yard on a corner lot is on too many sides. Aanenson: You have two fronts, yeah. Batzli: He's got two fronts. He would not have any area of his yard that I think would, he would have any privacy in under this ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 64 Farmakes: Would that be an exception to the rule? Could he 'ask for a variance? Conrad: I think you should tell the home audience that it's Steve's anniversary tonight. Batzli: It's Steve's 25th anniversary and we aren't going to let him go. Conrad: It's 5 minutes to 11:00 and he's dead.' Erhart: Well what do you want to do here? I mean do you want to delay it? Conrad: Let's table it. Aanenson: We've tabled it three times and the next agenda will be 3ust as crowded. Batzli: Well but you never got my comments until now. Now you have my comments. Now you know what you have to take care of. Go look at Chip Brown's house, right across from me. I don't know what it is. -151 Fox Hollow. Whatever it is. Look at his yard and you tell me how he could have any privacy without building the big fence? Ledvina: That's an existing? Batzli: But you're putting PUD's in all over the place with the minimum of 10,000 square feet. We have to cover this issue. On a small lot where the guy's got a house right On his side. He's got two front yards. The only thing he's got is this little piece of back yard that needs to be fenced. Erhart: Okay, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend. · Emmings: Did he build this fence after you moved in? That's all. 5rhart: Could you get some control over the audience? I more that the Planning Commission... Batzli: All because it's along the front yard that's built along the road. Erhart: Section 20-1019, location of fences as noted above. Ledvina: I'll second that. Aanenson: This area right in here, as long as they stay on that triangle. Batzli: Any fence on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in height. That's the ordinance. That's the wording. Emmings: This is a corner lot right here. Here's the example. This is his rear yard. This is his front yard. This is his side yard. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 65 Batzli: No, his rear yard is to the back projection of the picture. All the way up. Yeah, that's his back yard. He has 10 feet on the side. 15 feet on the back where you're saying his back yard is. Aanenson: He's got the side yard. This is his back. Batzli: That's his side yard. The way you've got it drawn because the road is going on the right and on the left in that' V. Aanenson: What that reflects is the sight distance so you can see. That's what that line is. Batzli: Isn't that where the road is? Aanenson: Yeah. Batzli: Okay, then I'm saying is, is the only part of his yard that you can do anything in is part of the front yard? Aanenson: Outside of the sight triangle. Batzli: This is front yard and that's front yard. His only part that he has that he can do anything in is back here. There's a house on this side. So if he, his fence sits right here.- That's what he's got fenced 6 feet so that he's got a deck in his back yard so he doesn't sit on his deck and watch all the cars go by all day long. And this would be considered front yard. He could not put the fence up. That's the 3 foot fence that he's got that he needs in this configuration. : Krauss: I think we've got to continue it now. Well, you still have a quorum. Batzli: I'm just going to vote against it. You guys can vote. You'll have a majority. Erhart: Do you have an understanding. .Does Brian understand what you're proposing? , Krauss: I don't know but if you want to continue it. Batzli: The ordinance clearly says, in a corner lot you can't have anything higher than 3 feet in height if opaque. He's got an opaque fence. He needs it. Erhart: Are we doing something here we don't Want to do? Batzli: No, I'm saying that if we've got small corner lots, and you're tucked up against the house on one side, which you're going to do in a 10,000 square foot lot, you're going to have one area that's useable as a yard in those situations. And this will not allow those people to have any privacy in their one little part of their yard.. Aanenson: So you're asking us to look at those small lots and come up with some different language? Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 66 Batzli: I don't know. Aanenson: Or not use it at all? Batzli: I don't know. Erhart: I guess I don't understand. I mean this guy's got'his, he's set back 30 feet and he's got a whole back yard there. Aanenson: He's saying in those instances where people don'tlhave that. Batzli: Well I don't know. Erhart: If you have a specfic example. 8atzli: He can't be pulled 30 feet back to have the 6 1/2 foot, I know he can't get that. But anyway. Maybe I'm wrong.. Go look at this lot and tell me that this meets the ordinance, because I think something'like that's reasonable. If we're going to allow real small, dinky lots like that. Anybody have any changes to the Minutes? Aanenson: So it was tabled? Batzli: Yeah, we're tabling it un'less somebody wants to bring up a motion? Erhart: You didn't hear a motion did you? Batzli: Okay, we closed the public hea~ing. All in favor of tabling say aye? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-1023 and 10-1019.. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTSS: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 2, 1992. ONGOING ITEMS. Batzli: Are there any items that we need to be looking at? Krauss: Oh yeah, we do have probably our biggest development the city ever had. 190 acre office/industrial park at the corner of TH 5 and TH 41. PUD concept plan is on your next agenda. Farmakes: Which corner? Krauss: Southeast. Farmakes: Any major tenants we should about? Krauss: I don't know of any yet. It's a concept. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 67 Ledvina: TH 41 and 5 did you say? KTaUSS: Yes. Ledvina: Across the street from Fleet Farm? Batzli: How is this coming in in relation to our-corridor study? Krauss: Well, they're both ongoing at the same time. Batzli: Is there any problem between the two... Krauss: I keep stressing to the folks at the corridor study that you're hitting a moving target. That there's things happening all the time and to the best of our ability', we're going to give people the opportunity to preview them and have some input. The question of a moratorium was discussed with the Council a couple times and they did not want to pursue one. So we're going to have to try to make sure that things don't happen so rapidly that the Highway 5 corridor study ceases to be as functional as it could be because a lot of things are already developed. Farmakes: If the sign ordinance, when are we going to get that? Krauss: Well Kate's going to be wrapping that up probably in the next month or so. We had just got so busy over the summer. Farmakes: I understand. I was wondering how that's going to apply to some of the stuff that we're talking about. For instance, the 15~ of the cap. Whichever one is the least. That type of stuff. I mean we seem to get into that a lot and waste a lot of... One thing of interest. The Lundgren house on the development up here. On the Lake Lucy Road. The model house is the short little lot. Remember that lot we were arguing about. They answered all the questions right. The salesman answered everything truthfully and when it got to the issue of the setback from the wetlands, he said go ask. the City. We don't want to get into telling you specifically. He didn't know who I was and he answered all the questions correctly. On the setback and the tree preservation area and so on, which in point of fact made it kind of a not too good sale. I mean when you were looking at it, because when he answered the questions, they were actually to his detriment in trying to sell the house. I was surprised however, the pricing on the homes is higher than some of the general discussion that we had heard. It's in the mid 200's. Krauss: Yeah, that's the price range that staff kind of ~xpected it was going to wind up. I don't know if it's because Lundgren kept on telling us that every time we improved the site, it was goign to cost more money but. Farmakes: I think if we get a radio in, it will be up to closer to $275,000.00 but it was a nice house. Ledvina: Where was this? Batzli: The Ersbo property. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 68 Farmakes: The Lundgren development and that was the one'that we figured had about 10,000 square feet. Krauss: Useable on that lot. Farmakes: Right. And that's where they put the model home. It's in that - Parade of Homes. Krauss: Now it was actually an 18,000 square foot lot but when you knocked out the wetland and. Farmakes: Right. Yeah, and they got to bulldoze right to the 60 foot mark. Or 80 feet or whatever it is. It's like whacked down. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS: Batzli: Administrative Approvals? Krauss: We have one that we're working on right now for Lyman Lumber. is expanding one of their office buildings on site. Kind of back in there they want to double the size of it but it's, when you take cumlatively all the square footage in that complex, it's a very small increment. I think you probably won't be able to see very much, if any of it from the highway. Batzli: Just out of curiosity, can you give us a 30 second update on what's happening with the mining permit to mine the north part of Moon Valley? I read your letter or memo or whatever it was to the City Council and I didn't understand what. They're going to be able to get less clay out of there? Was that the upshot? Krauss: Yeah, it was supposed to be on last Monday night. One of the big questions has always been, because they're using the infiltration basins instead of normal ponds, where's the sand layer because they've got to get into the sand. And we had conditions in there to demonstrate it. Well the only information we had was' antidotal that Tom Zwiers had his cousin Jerry who works for him go out with a backhoe and he said the claw's down 12 feet. Well, it turned out that there were soil borings and it came out at the previous City Council meeting. .They weren't in Zwiers' possession. They were paid for and taken by the firm that's contracting to take the stuff off and haul it to Eden Prairie. Zwters and his engineer found out about it. Apparently they knew about it for a while but they were not able to get access to it until last week. Late last week and showed the sand was closer to the surface than had been represented so there's no question the ponds'will work but there's less clay to remove so, on the basis of the fact that they need a revised grading plan, I yanked it from the agenda. Now the thing that's causing the most confusion on this is the thing that caused some confusion here was that third pond that's kind of straddling the old pit and new pit. And what does it do to views and how many trees do you lose? I was going to recommend and will be recommending to Council that they just ax that. I mean it's not technically part of the clay project. It's still confusing to people. I thought the trade-off was a good one for getting reforested the bluff face but if it's causing too much grief, let's not Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 69 go with it. As to what's happening on the gravel pit, I'm supposed to be in Court tomorrow on the gravel pit. They still have not complied with the conditions of approval and we're going back to the 3udge and asking him to shut them down. Batzli: Do we want to talk about our tree conservation easement? Krauss: Not me. 8atzli: Kate want to talk about it? Aanenson: No, I don't want to. Krauss: This is our perpetual eleven o'clocker. Target went longer than I expected. Do we have a motion to table our tree conservation easement? Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded to table the tree conservation easement discussion. All voted i~ favor and the motion carried. Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting ~as ad3ourned at 11:10 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim