PC Minutes 2-19-08Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
14.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
15.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system (Chanhassen has
adopted MN Rules Chapter 1306, Subp. 2).
16.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
17.Sign permits are required for all signs prior to the installation, to ensure compliance with all
applicable regulations.
18. The developer work with city staff to make any traffic and parking mitigation possible
under the circumstances.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CROSSROADS OF CHANHASSEN: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT; VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO
SUBDIVIDE 14.90 ACRES INTO 5 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 8 BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 101 AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE
08-01.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Korsh Kraus Anderson
Kathy Anderson Architectural Consortium
Dan Parks Westwood Engineering
Chuck Klinefelter LanDeCon
Jim Sommers 8683 Chanhassen Hills Drive No.
Scott Joynt 9113 Sunnyvale Drive
Tony Nuss 9140 Springfield Drive
Todd Strand 8557 Chanhassen Hills Drive So.
Tony Denucci 287 Greenleaf Court
John and Jacqueline Meyers 1011 Barbara Court
Sam Van Tassel Kwik Trip
Dan Sherred 525 Summerfield Drive
Frank Whaley 851 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson provided background information regarding the zoning and history of this
parcel, and what is proposed in the 2008 comprehensive plan update.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Keefe: Can I ask a question?
McDonald: Go ahead.
Keefe: Just in terms of this particular neighborhood commercial, I mean how, sort of in terms of
miles. How far out, if you draw a circle around it, how far out would you.
Aanenson: I meant to do that.
Keefe: Yeah.
Aanenson: Actually if you look at about a mile radius, which is typical…would recommend.
You know just kind of antidotally, we looked at probably need a little bit bigger map than this
but, on this one it’s hard to see it. It’s kind of inbetween but if you look at the neighborhood and
where the traffic’s coming from already, if you look at what we just approved at Lakeside,
another 200 units there. That was, excuse me. Lakeview. It used to be called Lakeside. There’s
condominium and the apartments, or the townhouses that are over there, and North Bay. Then
the Mission Hills, so if you kind of go somewhere in this area. I plotted it out so here, coming
down towards Lyman. Coming over, just short of Rosemount. Kind of cutting through the
Marsh Glen, Mission Hills neighborhood. That’s kind of that one mile radius, that
neighborhood. So these people that are already traveling on Lyman and those projects, as they
build out, and you still have the Klingelhutz piece that’s vacant. Those trips are already going
this way. On Lyman coming this way. Picking up some of these people may go, based on
collector routes, may get on 212 at Powers. May come back this way. This is Powers
Boulevard. So that 1 mile, because that 1 mile kind of cuts through the middle of that Lake
Susan area. And they’re cutting down through here. If that makes sense? So that’s kind of that.
Keefe: And how much of that south of there is residential? Is there a fair amount of that?
Aanenson: This part right here?
Keefe: Yeah.
Aanenson: Well that was the request that we had, I’m not sure, we recommended as the staff had
proposed, we did look at providing some additional office space on Powers Boulevard. The
property owner wanted to have it dual guided for all office. Concern the staff had with that is as
you move north, providing that all office, you get a pinch point here. You’ve got little
neighborhoods sandwiched between this residential. It just doesn’t create a great neighborhood.
It’s heavily wooded. It’s a beautiful area for residential. And then that’s topographically, it’s
separate from the other piece that we suggested be office, that faces right onto Powers
Boulevard.
McDonald: You kind of mentioned something about individuals are coming before us to look at
rezoning of the south lots. What’s the standard there if someone comes up, at least before the
Planning Commission as I understand, our hands may be somewhat tied because again of the
zoning requirements but what would be the hurdle that they’re going to have to get over?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Aanenson: Thank you. That’s a good question. On the land use or rezoning, if it’s consistent
with the guiding, which means as a piece of property is shown to be, the land use designation is
shown to be commercial and they submit a commercial plan that’s consistent with the city
ordinance, you would have to approve it. If they’re coming in and asking for a change from
residential to commercial, it requires a higher test, which means 4/5 of the City Council would
have to approve that. It also requires a lot more thought than that feat because we haven’t
already decided that we want it to be this. You have to spend a lot more time studying the
impacts. What that does, so it’s just a higher level of review. So when we went through the
comprehensive plan, we did have some requests and people wanted to get on the record stating
that they disagreed with our recommendations so they’re on the record stating that. We talked
about two of them tonight. There are a couple other ones, but as the recommendation went
forward to the City Council, we didn’t change from that. On the staff’s recommendation.
McDonald: Okay.
Aanenson: But I think they just wanted to make sure they were on the record so if the door
closed, they can point to that and say well we disagree…
McDonald: Well thank you very much for kind of setting the stage and giving us a little bit of
background on the area. I’m sure that helps us going forward. Sharmeen, if you’re ready to
present to us.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on the proposal.
McDonald: That’s a big project. Mark, why don’t you start.
Undestad: Just a couple for Sharmeen here. The area, MnDot’s right-of-way along 101 and
Lyman, how much green area does MnDot have from their actually curb edge to the property
line there?
Al-Jaff: I believe it is 50 feet.
Undestad: 50, okay. So the 20 foot setback to the building, they have 70 feet then from curb to a
building if anyone needed that much room to stop somewhere. Okay. And Kate, you mentioned
on the zoning, the initial zoning that when we looked at it the first time there was the property to
the north of the highway too and then when we rezoned or re-looked at this, we’re just talking
about this parcel then that went to this use?
Aanenson: Correct.
McDonald: You mean to the south? Across Lyman to the south?
Undestad: No, there was a little piece on the north side of 312.
Aanenson: On this or was it?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Undestad: Yeah, if you put that, yeah. That one back up. So the red area to the north of 312
that we had mixed use originally.
Aanenson: Yeah. I think what helps clarify, and Sharmeen kind of went through that is we did
this PUD, this project has been built. That’s the Gateway project. On 48 units on that. So this
was guided the residential and so this was guided the residential and then this one also had the
PUD and this is the piece that’s going forward now.
Undestad: So if we had some residential slated for that, the piece that they’re doing right now.
Aanenson: Correct. This was shown at conceptual, yeah.
Undestad: That’s what we’re changing.
Aanenson: Correct.
Undestad: Okay. Another one for Sharmeen. The wall and some of the grading in the parking
that I think is in that wetland. You made a note about the wetland setback area in there. That
that wall needed to move, be moved out. Does that do anything with their parking and their
Building 4F back in there?
Al-Jaff: We’re talking about this wall?
Undestad: That one and then as it comes down, right. Right there. Is that inside of that setback
area too or no?
Al-Jaff: A portion of it is proposed to be within, the way the ordinance reads is 50% of an
accessory structure. 50% of accessory uses may encroach. Accessory structures may encroach
50% into a required setback, I’m sorry. So it’s within ordinance requirements. It meets the
minimum requirement. The building itself needs to maintain the required setback. This.
Undestad: So yeah, what is that little bump out there?
Al-Jaff: That’s the trash enclosure and we are recommending that it be moved to maintain
required setbacks.
Aanenson: And then just for clarification, the storm water pond, there is no setback from a storm
water pond to the north.
Al-Jaff: No, there is not.
Aanenson: Just from the wetland.
Undestad: Okay. The reasoning for the 8,000 square foot max tenant to 10,000. Why was that
kind of put in there in the first place?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Aanenson: There is no underlying requirement under the BN district, there is no minimum. In
working with the neighborhood way, way back when the park and ride, putting all this together,
that was a number that kind of jelled, and then really until you’re ready to bring again
conceptually, you know I think this applicant will clearly state he lost an opportunity to capture
some uses because of that and a lot of things were bantered around. At the end of the day, we
believe that that was, it seemed punitive because you know we tried to look at that rational basis
of what that was for because clearly if it went straight BN, there is no maximum. So while we
wanted to cap it to try to meet the original intent of the neighbors. If you look at Edina Realty
building, which is also in a BN district. It’s a similar, there’s, it’s one building. There’s actually
3 uses in it. The title company and the mortgage company and Edina Realty itself. They’re all
under one building. Could we have split that in this building? We don’t want to try to do it that
way so we just felt it was more appropriate to say you know really that was put in there. There
isn’t any underlying district that’s not there and that’s why it’s a PUD amendment because it’s
not a zoning amendment to the original underlying zoning so.
Undestad: So on that same little note there then, the liquor store and the deli are two completely
separate tenants?
Aanenson: We’re, yeah we’re not calling it that way. That’s why we asked for the amendment.
We could have tried that you know, but I think we just want to be clear that it’s 10,000 and the
goal is that that’s not 100% liquor. That’s why we put the condition in there. That the intent is
that the deli is a component of that.
Undestad: Okay. That’s all I have for now.
McDonald: Okay.
Larson: Okay, I’ve got a couple regarding your signs. I’m not clear as to why you’re
recommending that we not allow that.
Al-Jaff: We believe the applicant has other means of.
Aanenson: Let’s back up first. We don’t allow pylon signs except very limited places in the
city. So as a general rule we don’t allow them.
Larson: Okay. That’s I guess what I was looking for.
Aanenson: Okay, and I think Sharmeen failed to mention that part of it so really the burden’s on
them to prove why, and we think there’s enough visibility with the heights of the buildings and
it’s beautiful architecture, that that’s what’s going to capture eyes.
Larson: Even though it’s on a major highway? I mean.
Aanenson: Well you know that’s something we’re looking at with the upgrading of the
ordinance.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Larson: If it’s tastefully done, that’s why I guess.
Aanenson: Well, we’re looking at that with the, now once we adopt the new comprehensive
plan, that is one of the things we have told the council, actually that’s going to the council next
week. One of the things we may want to revisit but right now it’s not in there, and we wouldn’t
support that because we want to be really careful. Obviously this would come into play for
example if a regional mall was to go in, we just don’t want that blight especially when you have
residential close by.
Larson: Oh that’s true.
Aanenson: And that’s really what it’s about. If you look at, our pylon sign, as we call them, are
intended to be architected compatible. We try to combine uses on, as this one has, and it is
architecturally compatible to the building so what we’ve told them is that we want to go back
and study other places on a highway because right now the only place you can do it is on
Highway 5. And it has to be part of a center, and there are some non-conforming ones out there
but we’d like to revisit that, just so that we’re consistent with other uses that may be on there and
how, if we decide it has to be an acreage requirement or something like that, so there’s some sort
of nexus so we don’t get a series of those up and down the new 12 because the visual experience
right there is very nice right now, so we just want to make sure it’s enhanced, not deterred.
Larson: And what about the other one that you, on the northeast part. The lower one. No, not
that one. That one.
McDonald: Yeah, the one for Kwik Trip?
Al-Jaff: The one for the Kwik Trip.
Larson: Yeah. Why are you recommending we don’t allow that one?
Al-Jaff: We’ve limited all the square footage for the entire development to 24 square feet. Each
lot is permitted a 24 foot pylon. You have a sign right at the entrance of this development, and
then to add another sign behind it.
Larson: Wait a minute.
Al-Jaff: This is.
Larson: Is that the one that’s proposed or is that the one that’s for sure going to be there?
Al-Jaff: This sign right at the corner is a tenant sign. Basically it will say the names of the
tenants, so there potentially could be 3 names on it.
Larson: So they can’t advertise their prices?
19
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Al-Jaff: No. Not on this sign.
Larson: No, no. I mean on the proposed sign that you don’t want. Right?
Al-Jaff: They could, that could be definitely an option for them. I mean we were just
recommending that it be limited to 24 square feet.
Aanenson: It’s just smaller in size.
Larson: A small version, okay.
Aanenson: And that is consistent with the current BN zoning district. So they’ve asked to go
bigger than that zoning district and so the challenge is for them to say why. Again we’re trying
to treat this neighborhood business district.
Larson: I’m sorry, it’s a lot to.
Aanenson: That’s alright. It is a lot.
Larson: A lot of information.
Aanenson: The lot, so we’re just tying it back to the underlying. Yeah, it’s tied back to the.
Larson: So they do get something? They can.
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Larson: I mean because I think that would be terribly unfair if they couldn’t advertise their
prices.
Aanenson: Sure, as does Kwik Trip on the other neighborhood business district, they’ve got that
opportunity. But we’re just trying to be consistent with that signage.
Larson: Gotch ya. Alright. That’s all I have.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Okay, let’s start with the variance. It’s a 20 foot setback all the way around or just on the
east side of the development?
Al-Jaff: Well, you will need it along the east side as well as the south. Again the intent is to
bring those buildings closer to the street.
Keefe: Even on the south side…commercial on the south side. Right? We don’t know that but
would we still want to bring that down to Lyman?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Al-Jaff: We did the same thing with the development across the street.
Keefe: Okay. So the development, the residential building, right? Southwest Station is set back
at 20 feet on that. Okay.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: Alright, and so this is more of a city request to bring, have them versus the developer
request? Is that right?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Aanenson: Yeah, and if you look at the sidewalk, we were looking at the walkability which is
we looked at the urban row. Same kind of thing just to make it more convenient so we don’t
have all that snow and, yeah.
Keefe: Yeah. Okay. Walkability. Somebody gets off a bus at the bus station and wants to go
get a cup of coffee before they go home to Gateway. How do they get there?
Al-Jaff: There’s a crossing right here. There’s a crossing right at this corner. There’s also a
crossing over at this corner. So you have.
Keefe: And those are both lighted intersections?
Aanenson: Correct.
Al-Jaff: And it’s one of the reasons why we requested this. Sidewalk be incorporated into the
site.
Keefe: And is that what the brown indicates is the sidewalk?
Al-Jaff: The brown, correct. Throughout this development is sidewalks or trails. Combination
of both.
Keefe: Alright, good. In terms of deliveries for these buildings, I mean they’re all pretty much
just front loaded and you know drop off?
Al-Jaff: Pretty much.
Aanenson: You can see some of these have the loading areas shown.
Al-Jaff: There are some side doors. To the side here. But it’s also the trash enclosure is also,
will be using the same driveway.
Keefe: So those buildings on that side are subject to vacation of 101, is that correct?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Keefe: And is that also for the road going through there or is it just to build it?
Al-Jaff: MnDot agreed to work with the City to allow their road to go through. Alyson, would
you like to address the 101?
Fauske: There are a few steps that need to be followed in order for the City to have jurisdiction
of that right-of-way. The first step is for MnDot to, they call it a turn back. And from what their
research has shown is that the right-of-way would be turned back to the City. Then at that point
the City would process a vacation which would require a public hearing held at the City Council.
So there are several steps that will take some time to accomplish. In the meantime MnDot has
indicated that they would be giving permission for the developer to work within that right-of-
way in order to accomplish the needs of this development.
Keefe: What’s the kind of time frame then?
Fauske: With MnDot we haven’t been able to pin down an absolute time frame but we’ve made
some really good progress with talking to their staff. They’re going to get started on getting
commissioners orders to release the right-of-way back to the City and then at that point from the
City standpoint, it’s a fairly quick process where we can turn that around within a few weeks of
MnDot being, with MnDot giving the jurisdiction back to us.
Keefe: Generally no issues outstanding…it will come back.
Fauske: There’s a lot of utilities within that corridor and so the applicant has shown some
drainage and utility easements that would be maintained through that corridor in order for us to
maintain the rights to go in and replace or repair any utilities in that area.
Keefe: Alright. One final question is on the drive thru. Just how many cars does that
accommodate? I mean I can just seeing this being a very popular stopping point. You know
how do you kind of size the drive thru so you don’t have that trail of cars running all the way
through the parking lot?
Aanenson: I’m just think that might be something that the applicant may want to answer.
Keefe: I can save it for the applicant. That’s fine. That’s it.
McDonald: Okay, is that it? Kevin?
Dillon: Yes. What is the staff’s position on the outdoor storage again? Of the ice and salt and
things like that?
Al-Jaff: Limited to the area immediately in front of the convenience store and it may not
interfere with pedestrian traffic. That means you can’t block this entire sidewalk. There is over
6 feet of sidewalk so they can utilize 3 feet of it for storage purposes. And we went and looked
22
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
around. I mean most gas stations, actually every gas station that we went and looked at had,
depending on the season, but usually it’s either salt or windshield fluid.
Dillon: Is that something that’s regulated? I mean.
Aanenson: We can. As a matter of practice, I think you have to put something in place that you
can regulate and I think the goal is to have it aesthetically incorporated in the building. If I may
say, Sharmeen worked really hard. It was shown in a different location. That was a big
negotiation to try to get that moved towards the building because sometimes they’re put between
the pump aisles and they kind of have the creeping crud and when it rains, if it snows, out rolls
the windshield wiper fluid and it’s, it happens. The store manager, by the time the police get the
owner of the property, try to get, so we’ve learned if we can try to put it against the building,
control that, regulate that, it’s a lot easier. To say it’s never going to be out there, is difficult for
as a staff to go out there and if we put that expectation to the neighbors that it’s never going to be
out there, I think that’d be a hard thing to try to enforce. Again, propane tanks, a lot of people
enjoy that as a proximity sort of thing that they can conveniently do that sort of thing. We just
want it to be aesthetic to the building and not between the islands, interfering with circulation.
That sort of thing.
Dillon: So then I also had a question on the drive thru. I think it’s something that staff can
handle so, are there other precedents in Chanhassen for coffee drive thru?
Al-Jaff: Well the only thing is.
Aanenson: We did recommend it on the other neighborhood one, the staff did. At that time the
council turned it down. Or that was the other neighborhood one and that was at that time when it
came through the Shell gas station. We had supported on that one. At that time the council had
turned it down so. That is something as we’re looking through the codes, and we’ll be sharing
that with you. We haven’t had that conversation with the City Council regarding some other
opportunities. We want to differentiate between fast food and drive thru as it relates to a dry
cleaner, bank, a Walgreen’s as opposed to fast food. And there has a history in the city of that
regarding fast food and drive in’s, regarding litigation and the like but no, we do not have.
Dillon: And so, I mean do we want to start that now I guess is the question.
Aanenson: We have a lot of demand for it. I guess we want to be careful where we put it and I
think when we looked at this site, based on it’s location on the 101 side, and the screening you
know, we felt that it would work on that site.
th
Dillon: Okay. For the 7 site, which is the deli and liquor store. Now is it one company that
owns both? Is there one entrance or are they two different stores?
Al-Jaff: One company. So this is the main entrance. You can either come in this way or that
way. And then enter into the establishment. A portion of it is intended to be occupied by a
liquor store and the rest will be a deli and a sushi bar and there will be an outdoor seating area
right here.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Dillon: So will the deli and sushi bar have a liquor license?
Al-Jaff: That’s what the applicant has, so if you wanted to go in and ask for a glass of wine, you
would be able to do so.
Dillon: Okay.
Aanenson: Let me make clear what the process is for that. So that would require an on-sale
liquor license. That does require a public hearing for that part of the liquor license. Council
would have to approve that one, so that would be contingent. So then a liquor license through
the City Council for, as it would for the other one. One’s an on sale, one’s an off sale. Both of
those have to be approved by the City Council. And I think to be clear, if that wasn’t secured by
the City Council as a part of this process, that building would go away and it’d be some other
type of use. And so maybe some other amendment.
McDonald: May I ask a question? All we’re voting on tonight then is just to cite the liquor
license has nothing to do with it then?
Dillon: I was just curious.
Aanenson: No. It doesn’t because that’s a City Council decision but I just want to make sure for
the record that if, you know that if this didn’t become, if the applicant would consider some other
use there, I mean I don’t think, because this building is designed kind of single purpose if you
look how it’s laid out for that type of a use so it would probably come back as something else, or
maybe combine with the other. Again we talked about those other uses that could have gone but
were eliminated based on square footage.
McDonald: Okay, so there’s at least two more meetings that the user of this building would have
to go through before they really would get what they’re looking for.
Aanenson: Right, but we would hope it’s clear with the intent of the City Council when they’re
evaluating that, that they wouldn’t approve it and then say well, you know, at least give them
some…certainly it does require a public hearing. Correct.
McDonald: Okay.
Aanenson: As does any other liquor and any of the other restaurants, correct.
Dillon: So I guess the rest of my questions are probably better directed at the applicant so.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: One of the signage issues we’ve had in the city is with LED signs. Could you clarify the,
are there any LED signs proposed for this? How about the pricing of the gas for the Kwik Trip?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Al-Jaff: One of the things that the applicant did request is window signage and in going through
and looking at different Kwik Trips, they did have LED within their window signs. Staff is
recommending that no window signs be permitted within this development. The ordinance, the
current ordinance, and whenever the city code is silent on an issue, we go back to, what does the
city code typically state and the ordinance does allow a limited area of a sign to be changeable
letters. So whether is done through LED signs or individual changeable letters, as long as it does
not exceed 25% of the total sign area.
Papke: Next question. It looks like it’s possible when exiting, it looks like it would be
eastbound to 12, you’re going to take the clover leaf there and then come right up to the entrance.
Do you have any concerns or have we thought about the possibility of people using this as a cut
through to avoid you know kind of cut the corner and avoid the lights at 101 and Lyman? Is
there anything in place to mitigate the speed through there, etc?
Fauske: Chair McDonald, if I could answer that question. A very good question and that’s what
staff had looked at initially with this submittal. Is there an issue with cut through traffic? We
had a, two traffic consultants look at this development because of, we knew that there would be
numerous concerns. The developer had their engineer take a look at it and then the City’s
consultant that the City uses also looked at it and to be honest with you, they anticipate there will
be some cut through traffic, and in designing a street to deter the cut through traffic just becomes
just prohibited of us as far as getting the traffic to move through commercial developments, so to
answer your question, will there be cut through traffic? Likely. Is it significant for it to be a
design concern? The traffic consultants didn’t feel it was.
Papke: Okay. I guess last is, you know if you look at this development in totality, it starts to feel
like neighborhood commercial. Where does a neighborhood commercial become a strip mall?
When you start looking at buildings of this size, any, you know comments on that? I mean if
you look, you compare to the one we just, you know talked about with Jimmy John's and the size
of that building and the parking issues and so on, and this one is starting to approach the same
scale. You have a bank involved. You have restaurants. You’re going to have a coffee shops. I
mean it’s starting to, I think the traffic flow on this one is a much design on this one but, that’s in
downtown Chanhassen and this one is supposedly a neighborhood commercial. Any comment
on that? Have we crossed the line from neighborhood commercial to a strip mall?
Aanenson: I think that’s a good challenge. If we go back to look at, if you look at this trade
area. Put that in the center, compared to what the density is in that other one. This, if you look
at, when we talked about the mile circle around. Significantly more households in this area as
opposed to the one at Century Boulevard and the one at Galpin. While Galpin’s a through street,
where you have the gas station, Kwik Trip. The other one where the Shell is in that center, is not
a through street. Totally different and you’ve got, not as much density right there because then
you have the other neighborhood zoning district which is up at 7 and 41 which probably feels a
little bit more. That is also BN. I didn’t point to that one on my map but that also is probably
similar. You’re going to see some changes for that. A revision to, let me just show you where
that one is. This 7 and 41 is probably a little bit more comparable and again a little bit bigger
trade area. It’s on a state highway. Again it’s got neighborhoods backing up to it. We’ve
worked hard to create that buffer behind there too but you’re going to see some changes. Some
25
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
additional buildings. One a strip center. At additional square footage to that and then the other
is a Walgreen’s. A 15,000 square foot Walgreen’s so I’d say those two. Again they’re a little bit
different because you’ve got two kind of in close proximity that overlap a little bit and we looked
at those two, kind of the remnants from when we did the Pulte Homes, Arboretum Village and
then with the Galpin being the through street, so if you put those, if those two would have ended
up together, it’s probably be equal. But that’s kind of the challenge there. It’s 70,000 square feet
and I’d say the one at, the one at Highway 7 and 41 is, when it gets built out will be probably just
under that.
McDonald: Kathleen?
Thomas: I have a question and I may have missed it so I apologize if I did miss it, but in here in
our packet we had decorative walls that are going to be put in. There’s like beading and that
kind of stuff and I’m just kind of curious where that is going. In property. Like are we
surrounding it or are we just doing decorative half fences. Half you know.
Al-Jaff: Partially where the signs are, the fences will go in and I know the architect intends to
address this issue as well so, if we can.
Thomas: I can wait. Thank you.
McDonald: Well most of what I was going to ask has probably been answered but the one
question I’ve got is in Building 4C, is the second floor set up for apartments or residences, or is
that going to be business also?
Al-Jaff: It’s intended to be offices.
McDonald: Offices. Okay. And I still have a lot of questions about the signs. I understand
some of what you’re proposing there, and in the packet you did draw the point between a
regional facility versus a neighborhood facility. The philosophy here is this should be a
neighborhood facility, right?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. I think then that would be an argument against the pylon signs also. I guess
the others, I’ll wait to hear from the applicant but I am, the Kwik Trip, I tried to look at what’s
there versus what’s going in here and to see if we’re doing equal treatment. What I’m looking at
is again the advertising for price of gas. You know any specials or those types of things and
there are a number of other convenience stores around the city that do have that advantage.
We’ve even allowed them to put up a big sign. How is that treatment equal to what we’re
requiring here where we’re saying, no signs for gas prices.
Al-Jaff: We’re not saying no signs for gas prices. We’re just limiting the size of the sign. The
applicant is requesting 48 square feet and we’re recommending that they limit that to 24 square
feet.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
McDonald: Okay, and I guess I’m confused. Is that sign supposed to be electronic or is that just
a?
Al-Jaff: If they were going to advertise the prices, or if there was an electronic segment on it, it
may not occupy more than 25% of the total sign area.
McDonald: Okay, so all we’re looking at is limiting the size. We’re not really limiting their
ability.
Al-Jaff: And the height.
McDonald: And their height, right.
Al-Jaff: They’re requesting 12 feet. We’re recommending that it be limited to 5 feet.
McDonald: Okay. And then the only other issue that I guess for Alyson more than anyone is,
this entrance that’s going onto Lyman Boulevard, do we see that as any kind of a potential
problem? I mean that’s got to be less than 100 feet from the corner of 101 and Lyman.
Fauske: That’s an excellent question. Our traffic consultant took a look at the access spacing
and he had indicated, and I believe it’s in the report where in the future the County may have to
limit that full access onto Lyman Boulevard given the, you know we do our best. The traffic
consultants do their best to forecast the traffic volumes through there and based on those
projections we don’t see an immediate problem but in the future traffic volumes may get to a
point where having the full access at that location may produce some safety issues, so they’ve
indicated that there may be at some point a restricted access at that location and it does not meet
the County spacing guidelines for a signalized intersection.
McDonald: Okay, and because it’s a county road then, that becomes a County decision? That’s
not something that we as a City would be able to implement?
Fauske: That’s correct. It’s a county road. Their jurisdiction. However we’ve talked to the
developer about that and we’ve made it clear through, we believe through the development
contract that that would be a good place to memorialize that comment. Just so that it’s in writing
and that they can be made aware of it at this time that in the future it may be a limited access.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. I have no more questions for staff, unless anyone’s got a follow
up question. I think the applicant could come forward and present us your side of all of this.
Mike Korsh: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Mike Korsh with Kraus
Anderson and I also appreciate being here today. I am here with Kathy Anderson, the architect.
Dan Parks with Westwood Engineering, and our landscape architect, Chuck Klinefelter from
LanDeCon and I just probably the easiest and quickest way to do this is just make ourselves
available to any questions that you have.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
McDonald: Well I guess before I do that, is there anything in particular that you want to draw
our attention to?
Mike Korsh: Sure. There’s a few things and maybe Kathy could come up and, there seemed to
be quite a bit of discussion regarding signage. So maybe Kathy can help me kind of clarify the
signage situation and explain the need for our request.
McDonald: Okay.
Kathy Anderson: Sure. Thank you Mike. I’m Kathy Anderson. President of Architectural
Consortium. Just a little, brief overview, I mean Sharmeen and Kate have been so thorough, as
you can see in your packets of covering things but just a little step back on what our thoughts
were here is, we do think we’ve got a very high quality neighborhood, community center and our
intention was to sort of balance and take our cues from the context of this area. Being that it’s
existing residential but also you have the new transit station. Transit station being very urban in
character and it’s charm and you know the urban nature. Why we’re putting buildings up on the
edge and the architecture with the residential then. That’s why we worked in some of the sloped
roofs and such to sort of bridge that gap. So I think really we’ve got a great aesthetic going and a
great plan, but something unique about this site, compared to other neighborhood sites is that it is
on Highway 212 and when you look at retail and the high volume of retail, many of us in this
development group have done, 212 is a different factor than other intersections on this particular
site. 212 travels at much higher speeds. 212 has sound barriers and buffers built into existing
neighborhoods on that side, but in particular the retailers are also choosing this site not just for
the, you know immediate walkable neighborhood, but because of 212 as well and that’s where
that pylon sign issue comes into play. It was mentioned that well, you’ve got wall signs and that
can be seen from 212. That’s simply not true, and we did the renderings of the view from 212 to
show that. We did the studies and site sections to show that this sign would not be visible from
any of the residential areas, but it is crucial for these tenants and for the success and viability of a
center like this, to capture some exposure from 212. Wall signs in itself are small in size and
there are all sorts of studies. We’ve worked with many sign companies through the years on all
of these centers and you, in order to see visually anything at the speed on the highway, pylon
signs are typically your solution. We think we’ve done a great job as far as it’s placement. That
it is not near the neighborhood. We have proven that it’s screened from the sound barriers that
exist out there. It’s visible only from the traffic and I think architecturally we’ve done a great
job tying it in. I don’t look at pylons as a blighted type situation. I look at them as a nice other
architectural element that forms an edge, which previously right now is just some wetland type
areas. And certainly we’re not needing to do that type of signage out at the intersection of
Lyman. We have the smaller signs that are more to the scale of the speed of that traffic. More at
your eye level of a car going at a slow speed, turning in. On the issue of the Kwik Trip sign,
really what we’re asking for is the safe signage that was allowed without a variance on the Kwik
Trip at Galpin and Highway 5. However, the addition, this is, we’re asking for the 48 square
feet. This is a 48 square foot sign. This is a previous version, but it’s in color. We did lower it
in height on the one that we’re trying to get approved, but it is a 48 square feet, but what Kwik
Trip is doing in this particular site, different than the other one, is they also need to have signage
for their E, is it E85? Yes, E85. This is something new to them so there’s going to be 3 prices
they need to advertise. Those prices do need to be of a size that’s visible or it’s very annoying
28
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
I’m sure you would agree, you know if you pull up and you can’t see the gas prices, it bugs the
heck out of me I know. And then simply they want to have the car wash name. The name Kwik
Trip and at the bottom, and also for the letters, the modern technology of the electronic letters I
think is much more tasteful. Many cities such as Plymouth. I know in Eden Prairie we just got it
approved out in front of the Kowalski’s but it’s not the motion you know type of signs that we’re
looking for. This is a modern technology where the poor guy doesn’t have to go out in a wind
and change, name change letters. I don’t recommend that. Keeping to that system. I think the
nice black, non-moving signs other than when the price changes, is what we’re looking for here.
And it’s very critical these days. We’re in a retail climate that you know a little background of
what’s going on on these centers. That there’s fewer and fewer new you know ways of attracting
retailers. We want this to be a full and great center, and that’s what they’re looking for are
similar signage opportunities. Exposure from freeways, and again I think we’ve done a tasteful
job at that. I know another question that was brought up was for the drive thru, and our intention
is for that to be a, for coffee. The stacking, which is typical in like a Starbuck’s lease and many
city codes are for about 6 cars spaced at 20 feet apiece. This is I think a great location for that in
that stacking, if it’s you know early in the morning, if it extends beyond it, it’s all internal to the
site. The row of parking to the north that could be blocked probably at the highest peak time,
that is a great employee parking situation. Some of the same issues you just heard previous to
us. So that is a 6 car stacking, drive thru. I think in a good, buried internal to the site so no one’s
spilling out into the road. Those are the two big issues I heard for myself so any other questions,
we’re certainly here.
McDonald: Okay. Why don’t we start with Kathleen. Why don’t you go first.
Thomas: Oh, okay. I guess going just back to, I had asked Sharmeen about the fencing and the
look of it and.
Kathy Anderson: Yes. The fencing, as you can see, I think the beauty of this and the non-strip
likeness of this site I think is in the master planning and the architecture. That we have the
buildings up on the edges of the roads for both urban character. To make sure it’s four sided
architecture. That it’s a pedestrian experience, but mainly for the neighborhood. It really those
buildings themselves, particularly two story ones, are going to block parking. We have a couple
gaps where there’s the drive thru and the area by the Kwik Trip where we want to have the walls
as another architectural element to screen the parking. And those have a decorative acorn type
feature. I think will work in with those streetscape urban type elements. Wrought iron.
Thomas: Thank you.
McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Kevin.
Dillon: So looks like you’ve got a couple of kind of like anchor tenants lined up, and one would
be the Kwik Trip and the other would be, you know the drawings we have had a Haskell’s for the
liquor store and the deli. Is that right?
Kathy Anderson: Well, that’s a very good question. Mike can chime in. In a neighborhood type
center, the word, the term anchor is a little more unique. You know at another center it’s a
29
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
grocery store or you know other type of larger uses. Yes, the gas station is considered an anchor
here. Restaurants are considered anchors. And then the liquor, one thing I wanted to clarify
about the liquor and it’s size. You’re wondering if it will be divided up and such and it’s the
same ownership but by state rules one of the things that are always fought here in Minnesota is
you can’t serve, you can’t sell liquor like at Byerly’s and the grocers and everyone who is
fighting that without separating it off from other uses, so there will have to be a barrier. There’ll
probably be a shared vestibule so they’re separate just by even state codes. And yes, an anchor.
Dillon: Okay. So like who are some of the other target types of tenants for the other buildings?
You know the 4 other buildings. I mean there’s like a retail, kind of more stripy looking thing,
and then there’s like a 2 story office building. Like what are the types of tenants that you’re
looking to fill those spots with?
Kathy Anderson: The type of tenants, and they all fall into that neighborhood category by some
of our industry standards are, you know your everyday type of service goods. Dry cleaners, hair,
nail, exercise, fitness, ice cream, small fast, casual food. The upper story office certainly
wouldn’t be retail. That retail needs the convenience of the first floor, but you’re seeing more
and more of the chiropractors, dentists, insurance, people that want their name. Their shingle
hung out and want to feel like they’re a retailer, but also enjoy amenities like coffee and, for their
own customers.
Dillon: So for the most part are you building this just on speculation and then you’ll rent it out
once you, I mean or do you have people signed up already?
Kathy Anderson: That’s a good one. I’d love to fill it out.
Mike Korsh: We have several letters of intent. The Haskell’s has not been completed. We are
certainly hoping to get them completed and think that it will be a great addition to the site. Very
upscale. We’re talking with several restaurants and have letters of intent from some of the types
of tenants that Kathy just mentioned. We will not just build it, build these buildings spec but we
believe we have enough interest in this point to get started with several of the buildings and
would love to do all of them at once if possible.
Dillon: So speaking of that, and assuming that you got the green light to do this, you know how
long would it, what would you anticipate be the time frame be for when you started to when it
was complete?
Mike Korsh: Well, we would love to, we’d love to start with the project this spring. There’s
some issues with the 101, MnDot easement that we talked a little bit about. We’re still trying to
get through. If we’re able to get through that, the typical building period for most of these
buildings is about a year. I would expect the entire process, with some phasing is probably 2
years. Maybe 3.
Dillon: Okay. Those are all the questions I have.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dan.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Keefe: I’m fine.
McDonald: Debbie? Mark? I guess the only thing I’m still curious about is the signage but you
know I think you’ve told me enough about that. I just, I’m not quite sure. I understand your
viewpoint. Understand what staff is saying and at this point yeah, I guess I’m still a little up in
the air. I’m not convinced probably either way at this point because I can see both sides, but
would you agree, from your viewpoint, you really want this to be more of a regional draw, is that
right? I mean in order for it to be successful, the neighborhood is not what’s going to support
this. The big emphasis you seem to be placing on 312 as a way to draw people off, and I would
think that that would mean, these are people you’re drawing off that aren’t coming into the
neighborhood but they’re coming by. They see this, so they go ahead and they get off and they
come in. Is that right?
Mike Korsh: Yes.
McDonald: Okay. And then does the State support that from the standpoint of where you get
signage on 312 that says, you know gas, restaurant, food, next exit?
Aanenson: Are you talking about the blue informational signs?
McDonald: Yeah. The stuff. Yeah, and you know you’ll get individual.
Aanenson: At this exit?
McDonald: Yeah. I mean is that something, I would take it that you would have to go to the
State to get that and I’m just wondering, are they supporting any of that?
Mike Korsh: We have not done that.
McDonald: Okay.
Kathy Anderson: I guess my perspective though would be, I think the sign looks a lot better than
those blue little highway signs. I mean this conforms. It fits in as part of an overall plan than
again additional signs.
Mike Korsh: A couple other things on the signage. I think that I read somewhere in the staff
report that initially the signage was, or the idea behind the signage that it was a bit restrictive to
ensure that this conversation happens when, at that due time. I also believe that there was
approval for monument signs on each of the lots at that point and that’s something. That was
sort of our compromise. We’re not asking for that. We’re not asking for a monument sign for
the bank. Instead we’re asking for adequate signage for the gas station. So there’s certainly
been a lot of compromises that we’ve made in working with staff to ensure that our project is not
at a competitive disadvantage.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
McDonald: Okay, well I guess that’s what I’m trying to draw out of you because you need to be
able to sell your argument for the signs as to why, and there are good reasons why they shouldn’t
be there because again the size. The brightness. The lights. You know the interference around.
What’s the trade off? You know what are we trying to accomplish? And that’s just all I’m
trying to you know get out of you really is why are you pushing so hard for this? Because I think
as staff point outs, the other Kwik Trip seems to be getting along pretty good with the signage
that they’ve got.
Mike Korsh: And the other Kwik Trip has 48 square foot sign.
Kathy Anderson: 48 square feet and that’s what we’re asking for.
Mike Korsh: We’re asking for nothing more than has been allowed on any other, any other gas
station in Chanhassen. And again I thought a great selling point for this pylon sign besides that
nice visual that was put together, that we have around here that we can pull up was that that
pylon sign is visible from Highway 312 but really nowhere else so it was not going to negatively
impact the neighborhood or, I hope you’ve got that perspective.
Kathy Anderson: The rendering?
Mike Korsh: I think that this perspective shows that it’s, we actually originally had proposed a
sign that was much larger than the sign that we’ve discussed here and have proposed. I think this
is being the smallest sign possible that’s still visible from 312 but will give these tenants the
ability to be noticed from the highway. And without affecting the neighborhood.
McDonald: Okay. I really don’t have any more questions, unless someone’s got a follow up on
something. I guess at this point I’ll throw it open to the public and we’ll hear what everybody
has to say that’s come to the meeting tonight. At this time then what we will do is hold the
public meeting portion of this and I would invite you to come up to the podium. Please state
your name and address and then make your comments to the commissioners and we will hear
everyone out. I’ll start with this side over here. Is there anyone over here that would like to
come up first?
Jim Sommers: Jim Sommers, 8683 Chan Hills Drive North. First of all I had a question about
this that’s in the packet. What does the, now I can’t read it. Waters Edge Drive drawing. It
looks like to me that’s coming right down into this development, and it doesn’t sound like from
any other drawing that’s a true representation.
Aanenson: No. It stops short of that. And it’s blocked by 212.
Jim Sommers: Right.
Aanenson: So it cannot continue. It actually ties into Lake Susan Drive.
Jim Sommers: So I mean to me that’s contradictory but.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Aanenson: Right, that’s showing the old alignment of 101.
Jim Sommers: Okay.
Aanenson: Yes. So that is not Waters Edge Drive. That’s the old alignment.
Jim Sommers: Okay. Secondly, I’m in total agreement with city staff on the signage issues. I
think it’s a good thing to remain within the ordinances that are in place. Other than that, the
outside storage, I think that’s another variance that I don’t agree with. The only thing I could
think of is, if enclosures were built that matched the exteriors of the buildings, to enclose these
outside storage issues. Other than that, I guess that’s about it. Thank you very much.
McDonald: Thank you for your comments. I’ll take someone over to my right, if you want to
come up next.
John Meyers: John and Jacqueline Meyers from 1011 Barbara Court. First of all I think I agree
with what Kurt was saying. This is really much more like a regional mall, or a shopping center
area versus a community shopping area, and that’s somewhat concerning as it gets developed
and moves forward. The other question I have specific to Kwik Trip is, both for the car wash as
well as for the pumps has to do with the closeness of that to the wetlands and remediation issues
for spillage, either from the mixtures used within the car wash as well as for any overflow of gas,
etc as it penetrates down into the soil.
McDonald: Is that something staff should address?
Aanenson: Sure. We actually have, the other Kwik Trip is actually closer to the wetland. This
is the gas station, the car wash here is on the most easterly side of the project. This is the
wetland here. This is all being brought to the stormwater pond. Since water’s going into this
storm water pond and being pre-treated before it goes into the wetland so there’s a series of pipes
that show how this is working. So it’s being pre-treated so we shouldn’t have, and actually that’s
the furthest away from the pond site. This property down here.
John Meyers: Right, okay. Thank you.
Jacqueline Meyers: As residents, we definitely appreciate the economic development and the
convenience, especially the coffee shop. The exterior is really attractive. And really appreciate
the thorough overviews provided by everybody, but as a resident of a nearby neighborhood, we
have essentially 6 or 7 concerns. The first being, like the gentleman who just spoke, we’d
certainly appreciate any enclosures that might block off the salt, the propane, the ice. Just from
an attractiveness standpoint. Similarly, just the, would agree with the signage issues. Just again,
as a neighborhood resident we’d prefer that, that look and feel remain neighborhood like. And at
the same time I’m wondering is there, if there’s an opportunity to limit the height of the lights
because as an ex-Amoco marketer, I remember that lights are a really big thing. Fuel stations
typically want lots of bright lights. Lots of attraction and that’s just simply not something that I
would hope for in our neighborhood so.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
John Meyers: Especially if it’s a 24/7 operation.
McDonald: I believe that that was addressed in the, Sharmeen if you would, because there are
limits on all lights.
Aanenson: That is addressed and I think if you compare our lights on our gas stations compared
to if you go to, there’s a similar one on Highway 7 in Shorewood. The intensity, if you look at
what we have in town already, I think we have a good benchmark, and that was set by other
previous Planning Commissioners who are concerned about night light and the bounce. We can
go lower on the lighting itself. It was one of the reasons why we looked at the second story with
office. That also help provides some of that noise mitigation and light mitigation on this side
over here, but that would be certainly something that the council could consider would be the
height of the 30 foot but I’m confident the canopy sign is addressed because if you drive in at
any other gas station that’s been built within the last 10 years, that’s our standard, which is
different than a lot of other communities.
Jacqueline Meyers: And I appreciate the recessed lighting.
Aanenson: That’s inside. Up under as well.
Jacqueline Meyers: Understand. I’m speaking specifically of the 18 versus 30 feet.
Aanenson: But that’s what I say, that could also be limited too. That also could be limited too.
Jacqueline Meyers: That’d be great. Awesome, thanks. The types of businesses going in
consistent with the neighborhood. Great. Dry cleaner. Coffee shop. Bank. Little more
concerned about the liquor store. Even 60% is 6,000 square feet. That’s a lot of liquor. Just
wondering if anybody else had any concerns about that. I certainly would prefer that not be so
close to the neighborhood. So we’d just like to express that concern.
Aanenson: If we can just, there’s two other liquor stores in the neighborhood district. Actually
probably more than that. The one that was just approved at Century, which is also a similar
zoning district which is, I’ve got way too many maps going here. We just had that one up there.
This one here. This neighborhood zoning district. Can you zoom in on that please Nann? From
behind the.
McDonald: Don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.
Aanenson: This one does have a liquor store there, and that’s approximately 6,000 square feet.
So and that’s in a neighborhood so. So what I’m saying is we’ve had experience with that in the
neighborhood zoning district. The council did approve that one. Similar situated.
Neighborhoods surrounding it. We haven’t had any problems with that so…
Jacqueline Meyers: Yeah, yeah. Okay. And then my last question has to do with the noise. I’m
wondering if there will be any limitation to the hours of the car wash. Any hours for the
business. Do we have any sense of when the traffic will be focused in this area?
34
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Aanenson: Yeah, they can address that. In the past we haven’t limited that. We haven’t had
noise complaints on the other, the Kwik Trip in the other neighborhood zoning district. I would
think they’re in the same proximity. Actually you have a better probably noise break but I’ll let
the applicant speak to that. We haven’t had noise complaints up there. They’re backing right up
against, they’ve got a narrower street and the residents behind that so just antidotally again, I
don’t know what the intention was. They can speak to that maybe.
Sam VanTassel: Want us to now or?
John Meyers: Please, thank you.
Sam VanTassel: I also brought a lot of paper tonight. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning
Commission. My name is Sam VanTassel. I’m the real estate manager for Kwik Trip. Our
address is 1626 Oak Street in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. I’m sure you’re all familiar with our existing
store on Galpin. Or at least I hope you’re familiar store on Galpin. Couple differences from that
in that our gas presentation is the same. 5 islands, 10 dispensers providing the gasoline. We
have 1 diesel dispenser. This new store will have 2 diesel dispensers and an E85 dispenser.
Now all of our stores have E85, so we should be the only store in town to have E85. We have
the 2 bay roll over car wash, which is the same here in this case. We do propose to be open 24
hours. It’s really a 24 hour situation. We are for society. Often times people ask me who comes
in your store at 3:00 in the morning. Often times it’s police officers, because we give free coffee
to police officers and often times they’re there so actually you’re more well protected in the night
than we are during the day time. And secondly, it’s really the neighbors because the people that
live further away are gone home and it’s the neighbors that maybe you’re coming home from the
second shift from the hospital, or those are the people, the customer base changes. Much more
localized at those particular hours. So that’s the type of customer that might come in our store
later hours. We abide by all the noise standards provided by the State of Minnesota. The MPCA
has noise standards for different hours of the day. We will comply with that. We are over a
tenth of a mile away from any neighborhood household so we don’t think those noises will
affect the households. In fact the exit lane stays northward toward 312, or 212, so that’s where
the noise will be. That’s where the dryer is. So we don’t anticipate the noise coming back to the
neighborhoods. They wouldn’t even tell it’s there. Again, if you have any questions of Kwik
Trip, I can certainly answer questions about this particular site or Kwik Trip in general too.
McDonald: Actually I think at this point what I want to do is, this is the public meeting so all
you were doing is answering a question and I would like to make sure that everybody that’s here
gets a chance to make comment and if there’s something that you all can add, that would be
great.
Dan Sherred: Good evening. My name is Dan Sherred. I’m from 525 Summerfield Drive.
Right in the Springfield neighborhood. Adjacent to this building. You know the old adage, be
careful what you ask for. You just might get it. I know that a number of months ago we were
asked you know what would you really like in your neighborhood and many of us said, we don’t
want a big grocery store. Please don’t zone it for grocery stores. And so instead of a grocery
store what we get is a large liquor store and I’m also very concerned about the 6,000 square feet.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
I think a grocery store sounds pretty good to us right now and I don’t know how many others
have sent emails in from our neighborhood but we’ve talked to some. I can only speak for
myself tonight but I think there are others that have the same concern. I think some have sent
emails in to the city regarding that. I think there are specialty grocery stores that could fit in a
6,000 to 10,000 square foot. The only thing that we would not have the same concerns about,
compared to you know a large Cub or Byerly’s and the like. As I look at my community in
Chanhassen, I think there’s as many as 5 liquor stores. How many do we need? And I certainly,
you know I wouldn’t prefer it for my neighborhood being so close by.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone from my right like to come up? Just step
right up.
Scott Joynt: Scott Joynt. I didn’t give you my address last time. It’s 9113 Sunnyvale. So I’m in
the same neighborhood Dan, on Springfield. My first question was the, we have a bunch of
neighbors that back up right about over here. Just so you guys look at, if you go 30 feet right
here, is that light going to hit those 5 or 6 houses right here?
Aanenson: The photometrics that were submitted, so there’s no spillage over that way. You
have to…and they submitted a plan for that.
Scott Joynt: And the other thing, so on Dan’s comment, I was thinking on Saturday and Sunday
I went and got gas. I drive all the way that way. I get a coffee. I had to go all the way across the
freeway. Dry cleaning, then I had to go to the liquor store too, so I think within you know living
over here, all those things would be right in the neighborhood. Kind of what you’re planning for
so I don’t see, personally have a problem with the liquor store. I think the gas, a lot of the
neighbors I’ve talked about, talked to said that’d be great. We can all get gas right there because
if you look at it now, if you live over here. There’s nowhere to get gas, unless you go downtown
Chan and then you miss the 312. You’ve got to go all the way past into Eden Prairie. You can’t
get gas along there anyway so it’d be a great, great stop for at least the 150 houses over here, and
then also the Lakeside stuff. So I think that’s it. Thanks.
McDonald: Okay, thank you very much.
Phil Denucci: Hi. Phil Denucci, 9186 Springfield. A lot of good presentations. I’m pretty
much in line with Scott and Dan. I think there are a lot of nice conveniences here. I’d just as
soon let the free market kind of decide what goes in with respect to liquor or small grocer and I
think you’re in a position here where you’ve got flexibility enough to let the best proposal
through Kraus come and present to us so you know whether it’s liquor or some hybrid or some
version of that, I’m pretty open to that. The question on the lighting I think is a, as you said,
there was no spillover. Did I hear you right?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Phil Denucci: Based on the 30 foot or the lower?
Al-Jaff: 30 foot.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Aanenson: 30 foot, but again, if you’re familiar with reading photometrics. This is a
requirement so this shows 0 at this line. I think as the architect indicated, one of the goals of
putting some of this in is, it’s not always, it’s the visual impact when you’re driving by. You get
that nice sense of I want to go in there…see that edge. That was the intent here. You would
have some outdoor seating but it doesn’t spillover onto that, and I think the goal, you want to
have Sharmeen did discuss it too much but one of the things we talked about is, when you got
those wall signs on the outside of the building, to light those down so when you have the privacy
from your bedroom, or you enjoy your back yard with your friends, that you don’t have that
visual annoyance right there, so that’s kind of that trick to make it safe for the neighborhood and
for the community, but yet not deprive the pleasure of your back yard and your neighborhood so
that’s kind of what was, that’s what started the photometrics and we can certainly re-examine the
height of those other poles. As we indicated sometimes that means more but I think that’s a
challenge to kind of look at that too.
Phil Denucci: Okay, yeah because there’s proposed residential on the Southwest Metro still I
was thinking as well.
Aanenson: Yeah, and that I think, that may one be more well lit with the park and ride. That
that probably wants to be a little bit, it’s a little bit more urban feel and they’ve got the sidewalks
with the light up so, for their security too. Porch lights or whatever.
Phil Denucci: And then as far as the front or back, the description of the salt, propane, fluid, ice
cubes. I have no issue with that. It’s a gas station. It’s not our front porch so, I’m a fan of
convenience over aesthetics when it comes to utilitarian amenities such as those but I think
you’ve got a great template to start with and I think you’ve made great decisions to this point so
supportive of everything seen here and I think it’s in good hands from this point so. Thanks for
your time.
McDonald: Thank you very much for your comments. Someone over here want to come up?
Todd Strand: Hi there. Todd Strand, 8557 Chanhassen Hills Drive South. I currently reside
somewhere in this area across from the freeway. My only real concern, well it started tonight
with the liquor store but I’ve kind of swayed away from the liquor store. Now I’m mainly
focused on the gas station and the car wash with the jet dryers. I can currently hear traffic right
now on Lyman. Car tires and what not. I know those are loud. I’m a big car wash fan. I use
them all the time. I have concern in the summer time about that you know so what kind of
limitations are being put in place in regards to canopy music. Pre-pay on Pump 6 type things. I
don’t need to hear that in the middle of the summer.
McDonald: Okay. Staff?
Aanenson: That’s one of those that we’ve tried to put a condition on and I’ve learned through
my years of experience, there’s some things that are just difficult to enforce and you accept it as
part of the business. That it goes on. Never did we image that you would have a TV station or
TV channel when you go to get gas, but as the world is now, besides getting the music, you also
37
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
get a TV. You know we try to regulate some of that for noise, and the only thing, I think it’s
difficult to say that, just like we say with stores, we want it to be tasteful. That it doesn’t disrupt
the quality of life, and there is noise requirements. Right now, based on again the design, we felt
that that was the best location. We looked at the overall design. That was kind of the first thing
the land based on the use. Putting the car wash on the side that it is. That car wash is on the side
closest to Southwest Transit and so for noise attenuation, we thought that was the best location.
And as the applicant stated earlier, there are requirements for noise and that’s something that we
can monitor, but again I would invite anybody to go look at some of the lights that we have on
the existing gas stations that we have in town and how we mitigated that. Besides these, the
canopy ones, Sharmeen had a request from the different perspective and we’re comfortable with
that. The visual impact that the neighbors would see looking across. 212 is recessed, but
looking across. Some of those neighbors will see, looking across the tops of those buildings so
again led to the requirement, architecturally be consistent all the way around. I think that was
demonstrated in the one project, but as far as will there be some noise? There shouldn’t really
be. I think the noise would be more kind of the existing 212 traffic.
McDonald: Okay. Go ahead sir.
Tony Nuss: Hi. My name’s Tony Nuss. I’m at 9140 Springfield Drive. I appreciate the effort
you’ve all gone into in the planning on this, particularly from the staff. I would encourage, if
we’ve gone through the work to make this more of an urban feel, that we consider the signage
discussion that went on. At the end of the day if this is to be a neighborhood use, commercial,
we’re not going to go there for price. We’re going to go there because it’s convenient in our
back yard so I’m not going to drive by it because it’s a nickel more than the guy in Chanhassen
so, take that into consideration please with the signage and again, the people who live in these
areas. I live down here so it’s going to be less of an effect, but the people who are up in here, if
you take into consideration the noise abatement and the laws and so on. Appreciate that. Thank
you.
McDonald: Okay, thank you sir. Does anybody back over my left? Go back over to the right.
Scott Joynt: Scott Joynt again. I was just looking at this again. I’m concerned about my
neighbors over here. When the bought, are they going to be looking right in, if these people
come in at 6:00 a.m., they’re going to be looking right in the windows right here. If you look at
the view from Springfield into there. The only thing I would suggest is if, if there is any kind of,
maybe a potential of that happening. I know MnDot put trees. Put some evergreens back over
here to shield the parking garage. Would the developer and the city maybe we could put some
more evergreens over here to shield some of that.
Aanenson: Yeah, that’s not the landscaping plan… We didn’t go through the landscaping.
McDonald: There’s probably more than enough to go through.
Aanenson: Again this is an artist representation of what it would look like. There is
landscaping required. There is a landscaping plan in here. It is heavily landscaped. Again along
that edge, as the architect indicated, that’s one of those things too. To soften the hardness of
38
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
those buildings, a requirement and again this would be, that entrance monument and this we
talked about all 4 corners. Mentioning landscaping to soften that…so that would be the goal in
that. Also to protect those people on that corner, and certainly look at cost.
Frank Whaley: My name’s Frank Whaley. I’m at 851 Lyman Boulevard. We’re probably the
most affected by this project because our driveway is right here. Coming into our property.
Larson: Okay, can’t see where you pointed. It’s not within range. Okay.
Frank Whaley: So our biggest concerns are, one would be the noise. The lights. They’ve
addressed most of those issues. Big concern for us is traffic. Right now like you say, we have a
turn in here. You’re going to have traffic coming down here. They put a left turn lane in to
access that center, but we have no left turn lane to get into our driveways so we are, when we
have to turn into our driveway, I can’t tell you how many times we’ve almost been rear ended
already waiting to turn into our driveways. Because the traffic’s coming at 50 miles per hour
from 101, and people flip us off and honk their horns because we’re sitting there blocking a lane
of traffic trying to turn into our driveways. This is going to be increased once this center opens
and we have more traffic coming past our driveways. The other concern I have is with the deli.
If this is going to be an on-sale and off-sale liquor, if this is going to be a patio area outside here.
Is that going to be open til 1:00 in the morning. How much noise is going to be created in that
situation coming directly across the street to us. Thank you.
McDonald: Anyone over on the left wish to come up? Anybody else on the right hand side?
Okay, well seeing no one else wishing to come up and speak for the commission, I close the
public meeting. Bring it back up for the commissioners to discussion. Mark.
Undestad: Well, I think a lot of pieces to the puzzle on that. Obviously a lot of time has been
spent by staff, with Sharmeen and Kate and the applicant here. I think overall I think the trade
off’s, I think Sharmeen has done a great job with the applicant on the give and takes. The
signage issues. I’d have to agree with what the City’s looking at on here. Again for the
neighborhoods. They’re not going to worry if they’re paying a nickel more and go drive down
the road somewhere. I know you get more freeway traffic that’s going to be looking up there if
you have that pylon sign in there but you also have all the people in the park and ride right across
the street that, they know how much gas is when they’re pulling in there. Still a couple, you
know even the last comment just brought up about the outdoor seating there. I know there’s no
lease in place yet on the tenant for the liquor store deli but if that’s their intent, there might still
need to be a few things kind of worked out as far as outside. Entertaining out there and hours of
that. Possibly the applicant of the gas station, you know I know all gas stations have all their
stuff out front and I think that’s really makes them look like a gas station is all that stuff out
front. So if there was a way to you know tastefully screen that off with something that looks like
the building with a gate across or a slider, something in there but overall I think it’s, you know
like I said, I think there’s been a lot of give and take on there and I think it’d be a nice
development out there.
McDonald: Debbie.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Larson: Well, I mostly agree with what everybody has said. I have a little bit of conflict going
on in my mind though because on one side of the fence here we’re going after an urban setting,
and when I think of urban setting I think of downtown. I think city living and not suburb. And
then the other half of it is, we want to keep it a suburb and a neighborhood, and that’s where I’m
fighting with this sign issue. I don’t really have a problem with the pylon sign, but I do have a
problem if it’s a lit pylon sign. If it was not lit so it really wouldn’t be an issue at night, but it
would be visible during the day, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. And as far as having the
gas station sign, I agree with the city on that one. I would tend to want to keep that lower. So as
far as everything else, it really looks like so much detail has gone into the design of it and a lot of
thoughtful process as to the traffic flow and everything. Like Mark said too, perhaps we can put
some sort of limitations on how late people can be at, sitting outside and drinking and whooping
it up. Although you know, I have daughters that work at restaurants where they do have outside
seating and typically they’re not outside past a certain time in the summertime because of the
bugs and in the wintertime because of the cold so. You know perhaps it not as huge of an issue
as what you think. So all in all I think it’s a nice project and I’m tending to go for it.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Well I really like this project. I think the architecture and the design is really, really nice
and I think it will fit in. It has a little bit more of an upscale feel to it. I think it fits really well
within Chanhassen. I commend you on your design of this project. I think it looks great. A
couple of items. In regards to the pylon sign, you know my tendency would be to wait on that
but wouldn’t necessarily totally rule it out in the future but I think we need to come up with a
city view on that. On what we’re going to do along 212. I think it could be something that could
be added later and I’d be willing to consider it at a later time. And I can see the reasons for it.
But I can also see why people would be against it, but I think we need to come up as a city is a
view on it. I don’t know what we’re going to do along 212 before we go ahead with it. I would
want to see the lighting come down you know just for the neighbors sake and enjoyment of their
own back yard. It is something that we kind of had a theme going throughout the city. I’d like
to see it continue you know certainly on the south side of the city as well. And you know
generally, that’s it. I think it’s a great project. A lot of hard work went into it.
McDonald: Thank you Dan. Kevin.
Dillon: Yeah, I agree. It kind of, I was reading the packet over the weekend and I was, kind of
did the teeth chatter thing you know, but I think it’s actually, as has gotten explained very well
by both the staff and the applicant, I like it. I think it’s consistent with, I really like the
consistency with the comprehensive plan. I think in several years from now we’re going to look
back and say that this was kind of the right thing to do in this neck of the woods. The sign thing,
you know I think, I’m in support of what the staff is recommending. I don’t think we should
make the signs any bigger than they need to be. I’m not supportive of the pylon sign. It’s going
to be a neighborhood thing. I mean you know if people are driving down the highway and I
don’t think they’re going to, be looking to go to this place you know to go to a gas station or
liquor store. I think if it’d be an awareness issues or result, you know on every highway I’ve
ever been on, there’s a little blue sign that’s got like the company’s logo and you can just you
know next exit get gas here and I think that will probably solve your recognition problem. Also I
40
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
think it was good that the neighbors came and gave their two cents worth. It is apparent that
they’ve got a few issues here and there and I think they’ve been noted by the staff but it’s not
like one of those things where people are totally up in arms and you know just going to not let
this go. I mean there’s some issues that have been raised but for the most part they, I sense that
there’s general support so.
McDonald: Thank you Kevin. Kurt.
Papke: These neighborhood commercial centers have been an interesting thing to watch develop
in Chanhassen. I think I voiced in some of the previous meetings my concern that, particularly
the one on Century never hit critical mass. It was never big enough. The access was never good
enough and my guess is, this one is going to go the other way. That there is no decent place to
get gas on Highway 212 between Highway 41 and God knows where. I mean you can’t get off
at Dell. You can’t get off at Eden Prairie Road. Unless we put one out on Powers, I mean this is
it and this has fabulous access from the west. If I’m coming in from Cologne or Carver or
Chaska, I get off on that cloverleaf and I’m right at the entrance to the Starbuck’s and I’m right
at the gas pump for Kwik Trip so I think this one is going to be hugely successful. And I think
it’s good that we’re designing it for this scale but I think we’re kind of fooling ourselves a little
bit to think that this is going to be “neighborhood commercial”. I think this is going to be a
regional draw. So, there’s nothing wrong with that. I think it’s a fabulous development.
Sharmeen, I think you’ve done a great job with all the trade off’s. I don’t think the signage is
going to be needed. I think people coming from Carver, if they need gas, after you know, people
are going to commute on this. I commute along here every single day and I’m going to figure
out that there’s a gas station there and you know, it doesn’t take me too long. I’m not real bright
but I learn where the gas stations are eventually and I learn to stop there and I think people will
figure that one out so I think the signage is fine.
McDonald: Kathleen.
Thomas: Sure. I as well am…development. As for the pylon. I kind of went back and forth as
well but if we could maybe do, if MnDot originally signs on and they do have the blue signs, I
feel like that would be adequate enough. I feel like it’s going to be more of a draw for the people
who are going to be coming out further when 312 comes along eventually further and at that
point I think those issues will be addressed more with the expansion of the road. As for the gas
sign, I am still a little, I mean I understand we want to have the smaller sign but I guess I look at
Kwik Trip’s got a sign that’s currently 48 square feet. I’m not sure why we’re bringing it down
to you know, I don’t know. I just feel like the other Kwik Trip has the same signage. Why
aren’t they having the same signage because I don’t know, I’m one of those people that would
drive by a gas station if they don’t have a good gas price, but hey. Maybe that’s not everybody.
I also am concerned about the left turn lane for those people on those driveways. They’re having
to make a turn into their driveway because I feel like that’s something that is going to have to be
addressed because I can understand where they’re currently getting flipped off and honked at just
because people aren’t going to slow down and realize they are actually are turning. And for the
outside storage and the convenience store, it’s a convenience store. I don’t know. They dump
them. They drop their pallets off and it’s washer fluid and salt and stuff like that so, I think
that’s acceptable.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
McDonald: Okay. Well I also kind of went back and forth on this whole thing. The thing on the
pylon sign, as Kate said. This is an issue that’s going to be taken up at some point in the future
so I really don’t think it’s an issue for this particular project. If the City Council decides that this
is something we want, you can always re-apply at that point, but for now the other thing that I go
back and forth with is regional versus a neighborhood draw and like Kurt, I’m afraid this is not a
neighborhood thing, which is probably a good thing. It really is but because of that there is a
new reality that I think everyone’s got to kind of look at here and that’s in, that is that yeah, there
is, it’s probably going to be supported by people who live outside of the neighborhood. And for
this to be successful for the, the city wants it to be successful so I think that, that’s good and we
should recognize that instead of I think sticking our head in the sand about a couple of issues.
The big issue along that is definitely Lyman Boulevard and that left hand turn. I, you know
we’ve been through this before about what the city can and cannot do and I understand that once
the county gets involved, there’s very little that we can do but that does create kind of a
dangerous part. That’s beyond the scope again of the development but I think the city should be
put on notice, we need to do something about that. You know study it. Look at it. Try to do
something to keep an accident from happening because again, we’ve just gone through a lot
today to say that you know from the comp plan, directly across the street that’s residential, which
means at some point we’re going to be having a development in there. There will be people
turning in there for homes or whatever, but again that becomes a county issue and I would hope
the city staff would be working with the county to.
Aanenson: Sure. There was an alternative proposed by MnDot. That was rejected by the
neighbors so, and we can go back and re-visit that if the neighbors want to do that but there was
a, yeah.
McDonald: Okay, I shouldn’t have brought that up right now. No, I.
Aanenson: I think, I feel like you know we hadn’t addressed it. The City Engineer did you
know present that. It’s a county, it’s a state project and we recognize that. It is difficult to get in
and out of those driveways. The grade changes drastically. We recognize that so.
McDonald: Yeah, I guess all I’m saying is that, it would be nice if the city would help the
people that live to the south because I think that’s one of the duties of the city to help with the
safety and maintenance of roads and everything, but that’s not part of this project. I’m not
voting on this project based upon that. I’m just giving you my general comments that you know
within there, I think that that’s a problem and it comes back to what is this? A regional or a local
draw and I think it is going to be a regional draw which means we will have traffic there, and
there will be more than just neighborhood people coming into this so, that’s something that we
should go into it with our eyes wide open. That it is a potential problem. Now the thing about
the lights.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I’m not sure, I’m sorry. I’m not sure I understand what you’re, what
you’re directing staff to do.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
McDonald: What I’m addressing is again the safety issue that was brought up about the turning,
the left. Well, left hand turns into the residential side which is across from the development.
Aanenson: All 4 parcels you’re talking about.
McDonald: Right. At that point right there because as people now turn to the right, what’s
going to happen there? It’s not a 4 lane highway.
Aanenson: I just want to make sure so I’m tracking…
McDonald: I’m talking about that area down there because that will be zoned, you know what’s
guided toward residential development which means at some point we’re going to have people
living there trying to get into their homes. We currently do and there’s only 4 of them, and
they’re having a problem. So it gets worst.
Fauske: Mr. Chair if I may, perhaps an appropriate time to look at that, and staff has already got
it in the back of our minds, as we look at development applications coming in for that particular
site is to have a combined access. To provide a single access for those 4 properties off Lyman so
we will keep pursuing that.
McDonald: Okay. I’ll move on. The other issue about the lights, I understand wanting to bring
it down but I think Sharmeen had said something, if we lower the limit that means more lights.
What’s the impact there?
Aanenson: Nothing. The photometrics still have to be 0 at the property line. It’s just that you
need more lights to create the same. You don’t want to have dark zones either so we just have
to, there’d be more posts.
McDonald: And then I guess to sum it up, the only other thing is on the signage. I think I pretty
much agree with all of it except for the one sign where they’re asking to be the same as what
they currently have over at the Kwik Trip on Galpin Boulevard. So I mean that’s, I’m not sure
how we’re going to do that because within the recommendations that’s either going to have to be
amendment, we’ll vote on that or, we’ll take it from there. That’s all I have, unless someone else
has got something else. Then we’ll accept a motion.
Papke: 1 or 4? Do you want to vote 4 times or do you want to vote once?
McDonald: That brings up an interesting point. I guess the problem is, if we take the
recommendation as is, you will get a vote based upon what that is.
Papke: Could make a friendly amendment?
McDonald: Yeah, if everybody’s willing to accept a friendly amendment. Let’s do that.
Papke: Okay. Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion. First of all that the Planning
Commission recommends the City Council approve the PUD amendment and attached ordinance
43
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
for the city Gateway, Chanhassen Gateway clarifying setbacks, signage, and retail building size
incorporating the changes as shown in the staff report. And then the second motion is that the
Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the variance request #08-01 to
allow a 20 foot setback from Lyman Boulevard and a 20 foot setback from Highway 101 as
shown in the plans dated received January 18, 2008, including the attached Findings of Fact and
recommendation that’s in the staff report. Third motion. That the Planning Commission
recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 08-01 for
Crossroads of Chanhassen as shown in plans dated received January 18, 2008. And including
the attached Findings of Fact and recommendations subject to the following conditions 1 through
28. And motion number 4. That the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the 7 site plans consisting of a 5,300 square foot convenience store with gas pumps, a
2,805 square foot car wash, Building 4A, a multi tenant building with an area of 11,000 square
feet. Building 4B, a two story multi tenant building with a first floor area of 13,800 square feet
and second floor area of 15,000 square feet. Building 4C, a one story retail building with an
area of 8,000 square feet. Building 4D, a 5,000 square foot bank with drive thru window.
Building 4E, a 3,400 square foot retail building. Building 4F, a 10,000 square foot deli and
liquor store. Building 4G, planning case 08-01 for Crossroads of Chanhassen as shown in plans
dated received January 18, 2008 and included the attached Findings of Fact and
recommendations subject to conditions 1 through 24. So I guess a large planning packet
deserves a large motion.
Aanenson: And then conditions…
Papke: And then conditions specific to the sites included as part of the motion 1 through 8 as
included in the staff report.
McDonald: And are there going to be any friendly amendments?
Keefe: Yeah, I would propose a friendly amendment to number 1(k)(l). I’m not exactly sure
how to phrase this but really like to have the lighting re-looked at in light of, in light of neighbors
looking at it. I don’t know if it’s so much the photometrics hitting the edge. It’s more the sort of
visual so however we phrase that.
McDonald: Then are you asking that we not exceed the 30 feet that’s currently in there? That
we go to something lower?
Keefe: Well in some ways I’d say almost strike that you know because that’s amending to a
higher level than is currently in the, so what my suggestion is, and my understanding is that that
height, people from across the way can look and they’ll see them. And what I would like to do is
to have them lowered to more frequent so that’s…
McDonald: Is there a standard?
Aanenson: Well I think what we want to make sure is that it can’t be seen and they need to
demonstrate that so if we can leave that in there that they can demonstrate to us what’s there,
then we can show that to the neighbors so they’re satisfied.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Keefe: Well maybe that’s the way to say it. Let’s say a friendly amendment for the developer to
demonstrate that there’s no visual intrusion.
Aanenson: Correct, and that includes the other side of 212. The other neighborhood too.
Keefe: Alright.
McDonald: Okay. Any other amendments?
Keefe: Did you get that Sharmeen?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Thomas: I don’t know if anyone’s interested but I’d kind of like to make a friendly amendment
to the monument sign thing. J(2). I would like it to be equal to the other site. I just feel like the
signs for that gas, for the pump prices, if the Kwik Trip at the other site is 48 square feet and this
thing says 24. Limited to 24 square feet. I’m not too sure why they’re not equal.
McDonald: I think 48 was the equal over at Galpin.
Thomas: Yeah.
Papke: And the rationale for that is what?
Thomas: That it makes it easy to see it if it’s going to be on the site property. You can, they
have more additional gas prices on the sign. E85 versus regular and the rest.
Dillon: I don’t like that amendment. That’s not friendly to me.
McDonald: But it’s his motion so.
Papke: I’m willing to listen to anybody else’s opinion on the topic however.
Larson: I have one more.
Papke: Any other comments on this amendment?
McDonald: If you wish to argue against it, what is your argument?
Dillon: Well because I think that the, you know we’ve got, somehow it seems like a precedent
got set somewhere else that exceeded the size. 24 feet, square feet is like the standard issue size,
right?
Aanenson: Correct.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Dillon: The 48 square foot, I don’t know how that got.
Aanenson: I’m not sure either.
Dillon: Okay, but I don’t think we need to exacerbate the bigger signs. That’s my opinion. I
think that, as someone pointed out, it’s a convenience thing. The sign’s going to be a target to
people in the neighborhood and you know, it’s going to have the price of gas on it. If they’ve got
you know, if someone said it, they’re not going to drive all the way into Chanhassen to save a
few cents for a gallon of gas so, if they can’t. I just, that’s my opinion.
Aanenson: Yeah, that’s something we can point out to the council. There’s a couple people that
have that issue and there wasn’t 100% consensus on that. There is one person.
McDonald: Is there anyone else for or against it? I’m sorry sir, at this point we’re trying to
deliberate and come up with something.
Undestad: I kind of agree with Kevin that we need to get back to setting up what we have set up
originally and.
Larson: The only friendly amendment I would like to have is.
Papke: Can we finish this one first?
Larson: I’m so sorry.
Papke: You want to comment on this one? Pro or con the size.
Larson: That one particular sign?
Papke: Yes.
Thomas: The one sign, yeah.
Larson: I want to talk about the other sign.
Papke: But do you have a comment on this one first?
Larson: No.
McDonald: I guess my comment, you know why I would be in favor of it is again because of the
amount of information that’s going to be on that sign. I don’t think you want it to be squeezed
down so people are trying to read it at 40 miles per hour. That’s the big advantage. I think
you’ll be able to see it. That’s why I’m in favor of making it at least the same size as what it is at
Galpin.
Keefe: My vote is to go with staff’s recommendation.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Papke: Sounds like we’re pretty split. I’ll go with the larger one and.
Aanenson: We’ll address it at council. We’ll research the other one too.
Papke: You’ll address it at council. Okay. So I’ll accept the friendly amendment.
McDonald: Okay.
Larson: I would like to make a friendly amendment regarding the, what do you call it, the pylon
sign? The tall one. To leave that option open for future consideration.
Papke: Wouldn’t it be open anyway?
McDonald: I think it is open.
Papke: They can always come back and ask for.
Larson: It is? Okay.
Aanenson: It is open. For the record, that’s one of the code amendments that’s going forward.
We’ve told the applicant that. You’ll be seeing that shortly.
Larson: Okay. Then skip it.
Aanenson: Yep, so if we do amend it, and as I think Dan pointed out, we want to look at that in
a holistic sense. Not just on this spot and we’ll have an opportunity. There’ll be public comment
on those ordinance amendments…
McDonald: Okay, any more friendly amendments? Okay. Do I have a second of the motion
then?
Undestad: Second.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for
Chanhassen Gateway clarifying setbacks, signage, and retail building size incorporating
the changes as shown below (amendments are shown in bold), and including the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
CHANHASSEN GATEWAY
PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
47
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the
PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality
and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed
Exhibit A
through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
reflects the site layout and buildings as referenced herein.
b. Permitted Uses
?
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and
service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood. The uses
shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a
use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that
interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity
neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of
residents. Commercial and office uses shall be limited to the area located south of
Highway 212. Residential uses shall be located north of Highway 212 and along the
western portion of the southern half.
?
Small to medium-sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no
except drive-thru windows are allowed for tenants whose
drive-thru windows
primary use is the sale of coffee. The drive-thru lane shall be screened and the
exterior wall of the drive-thru shall contain the same level of architectural detail
as any other elevation visible by the public.
?
Banks with a drive-in service window
?
Office
48
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
?
Day care
?
with the
Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per tenant
exception of building 4C. A tenant may occupy up to 10,000 square feet of said
buildingNo individual service component of a retail building shall occupy more
.
than 8,000 square feet of a building. The liquor store may not occupy more
than 60% of the total area of building 4G.
?
and car wash.
Convenience store with or without gas pumps
?
Specialty retail (Book Store, Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales,
Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.)
?
Personal Services(an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in
providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor
Shop, Shoe Repair, Self-Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning,
Dance Studios, etc).
?
Residential High Density (8-16 units per net acre). The total number of units for the
entire site may not exceed 150 units.
c. Building Area
?
Commercial/Office – Not to exceed 75,000 square feet for the entire development
?
Maximum Commercial/Office lot usage is a Floor Area Ratio of 0.3
?
Maximum office/commercial building area per tenant may not exceed 8,000 square
feet
?
Maximum residential units may not exceed 150 units.
d. Prohibited Ancillary Uses
?
, coffee shops
Drive-thru Windows except banks or pharmacies.
?
such as propane, salt, window washer
Outdoor storage and display of merchandise
fluid, etc. except on the sidewalk surrounding the convenience store 4A. The
outdoor display of merchandise shall not impede nor interfere with pedestrian
traffic.
e. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The
following table displays those setbacks.
Boundary Building/ Parking
Setbacks (feet)
20/20
Lyman Boulevard 50/50
North of Highway 312
Highway 10150/50
South of Highway 312 20/20
Highway 101 50/50
312
Highway 212 50/50
Northerly Project Property Line 50/20
Westerly Project Property Line 50/20
49
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
Boundary Building/ Parking
Setbacks (feet)
Internal Project property lines 0 /0
Internal Right-of-Way (Crossroads Boulevard) 20/20
Hard Surface Coverage-Residential 50 %
Commercial and Office Hard Surface Coverage 70 %
Maximum Commercial (Retail) Building/Structure Height 1 story
Maximum Office Building/Structure Height 2 stories
Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories,
whichever is less
f. Non Residential Building Materials and Design
There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive
nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. Buildings and site design shall comply with
design standards outlined in Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations, Division
7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
g. Residential Standards
Buildings and site design shall comply with design standards outlined in Article XXIII.
General Supplemental Regulations, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
1.All units shall have access onto an interior private street.
2.A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include
colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick, stone, etc.
3.All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls.
h. Site Landscaping and Screening
The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property
abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding
neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise
pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare.
1.The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated
with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage,
parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc.
2.Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site
plan review process.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
3.All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be
landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells
shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas.
312
4.Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard, north and south of Highway 212 and
west of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility
construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed
necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping
shall be sodded.
5.Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required
where deemed appropriate.
6.Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
i. Street Furnishings
Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of
design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street
furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian
movement.
j. Signage
The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the
development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability
to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic
safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private
property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is
the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and
image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the
public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
a.Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to
advertise their name and service;
b.Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
c.Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards;
d.Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that
does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
51
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
e.Preserve and protect property values;
f.Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible
with, the principal structures;
g.Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs
which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
j.1. Project Identification Sign
One project identification sign for the commercial portion of the development located at
the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80square
feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback
a minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
As an alternative, the project identification sign may be located at the southeast corner of
Lot 2, Block 1. If the sign is located in the right-of-way, an encroachment agreement
must be obtained. Otherwise, the sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from property
lines and may not exceed 24 square feet nor be higher than 5 feet.
j.2. Monument Sign
One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lake
Susan Drive. One monument sign per lot shall be permitted for the commercial portion
of the site. One multi-tenant sign shall be permitted at the entrance into the development
off of Highway 101 and two signs off of Lyman Boulevard. These signs shall not exceed
24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. These signs
shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
j.3. Wall Signs
a.The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign
bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground
parapet height
. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in
height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of
wood, metal, ortranslucent facing.
Second story
b.illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the
PUD site, are prohibited.
c.Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the
tenant’s proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos,
emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined
52
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the
logo is the sign.
d.Wall signs are limited to two elevations per building.
j.4. Festive Flags/Banners
a.Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building
facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting.
b.Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl.
c.Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or
products.
d.Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet.
e.Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
f.Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request
of the city.
j.5. Building Directory
a.In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The
directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet.
j.6 Directional Signs
a.On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height
of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of
directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not
adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining
ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No
more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow
additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be
jeopardized.
b.Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and
traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through
residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to
effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council.
c.Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit
authority.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
d.Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public
signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to
reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of
directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial
area and away from residential areas.
j.7.Prohibited Signs
?
Pylon signs are prohibited.
?
Back lit awnings are prohibited.
?
Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name.
Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area.
?
Menu Signs are prohibited.
j.8. Sign Design and Permit Requirements
a.The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality
of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and
height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the
development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
b.All signs require a separate sign permit.
c.Wall business signs shall comply with the city’s sign ordinance for the Neighborhood
business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be
permitted on the “street” front and primary parking lot front of each building.
k. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the
development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall
be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian
scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot
Parking lot light poles may not exceed 30 feet in height. The developer needs to
areas.
demonstrate that there will be no visual intrusion to any neighborhoods.
in areas other than parking lots
2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale
(12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in
identifying the commercial area.
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than
½ foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street
lighting.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the
parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in
close proximity to buildings.
l. Non Residential Parking
1.Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever
possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be
protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
2.The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a
minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The
office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and
provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per
thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square
feet thereafter.
m. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve variance request #08-01 to allow a 20-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard
and a 20-foot setback from Highway 101, as shown in plans dated received January 18,
2008 and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 08-01 for Crossroads of
Chanhassen as shown in plans dated received January 18, 2008, and including the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions:
1.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon
final plat submission and approval.
2.The width of the sidewalk located west of Highway 101 shall be increased to 8 feet.
3.Encroachment agreements are required for any extensive landscaping or signage and
sidewalk proposed.
4.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $224,420.60.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
5.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
6.The proposed stormwater pond shall be constructed prior to disturbing up-gradient areas and
used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. Diversion berms/ditches may be
needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet shall be provided. The outlet
could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to
include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
7.The applicant shall locate all boulevard trees behind the sidewalk along the public street.
Trees are not permitted between the sidewalk and the street.
8.The applicant must submit a landscape plan with a complete Plant Schedule and all species
and quantities noted on the plan.
9.Resize the pond to the required dead storage. Lower the normal water level (NWL) of the
pond to 908.0. MnDOT requirements regarding the rate to the wetland and the bounce of the
wetland must still be met.
10.The proposed storm sewer will need to be adjusted. High points on the public street should
be located near the access points to allow better sight distance. Resize the pond to minimum
requirements to allow the county storm to remain in place. Rational method calculations are
needed for the sizing of the storm sewer.
11.The grading plan needs to be revised. The HWL listed on the plans does not match the
hydrologic calculations. The drainage calculations need to be reorganized. Revise the outlet
to the wetland so that the flared end section is adjacent to the wetland buffer. Show
emergency overflows on the plan.
12.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
13.Remove or lower the retaining wall along the existing watermain. The dead storage in the
pond is oversized. Changes in grading and removing some of the excess dead storage should
56
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
allow the wall to be removed in this area.
14.Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
15.The sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain within the public right-of-way and along the
Old Highway 101 corridor shall be publicly owned and maintained. All other utilities shall
be covered by a cross-access agreement. The proposed watermain must wet tap the existing
watermain.
16.Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water, and
storm sewer lines.
17.Determine actual elevations of existing utilities. A minimum vertical separation of 18 inches
is required at all storm, sanitary, and watermain crossings. Also, provide 10 feet of
horizontal separation between storm, sanitary and watermain. Any gas, electric, cable, or
telephone located outside of a public easement must be relocated.
18.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2008 trunk
hookup charge is $1,769 for sanitary sewer and $4,799 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
19.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA,
Dept. of Health, Carver County, Watershed District and MnDOT.
20.A drainage and utility easement of 20 feet is required over the existing county storm sewer.
Remove the drainage and utility easements from the private utilities and cover these with
cross-access agreements.
21.The developer will need to work with the City and MnDOT to acquire access to the site and
acquire the land from Old Highway 101.
22.Access to the site must be via a public street designed to Minnesota State Aid Standards.
This street will be maintained by the City. The public street connection on Highway 101
must align with the lanes provided with the off ramp of Highway 212. Survey existing lanes
to ensure that the proposed lanes will line up with existing. The public street must be named
and the name found acceptable by the City. Modify the right-of-way at intersection of
Lyman Boulevard and the public street to accommodate the trail. No parking will be allowed
57
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
on this public street. Add no parking signs to plans.
23.Upon completion of the public street, the applicant shall submit a set of “as-built” plans
signed by a professional engineer.
24.Modify access drives to the City maximum of 26 feet. Remove any objects placed in the
horizontal sight triangles of the intersections. A commercial drive entrance shall be added to
each connection with the public road matching City Detail 5207.
25.Collector and Arterial Roadway Traffic Impact Zone fees will be collected with the final plat.
The fee will be based on the commercial rate of $3,600 per acre.
26.The preliminary plat needs to be adjusted. Fix the text error for Parcel 3 and determine why
the boundary does not close.
27.Encroachment agreements are required before the construction of the signs within the
drainage and utility easements. Shift the pylon sign 10 feet south of its current location to
allow room for the pond access road.
28.All outstanding assessments must be paid prior to final plat.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the seven site plans consisting of a 5,300 square-foot convenience store
with gas pumps and a 2,805 square-foot car wash (Buildings 4A), a multi-tenant building
with an area of 11,000 square feet (Building 4B), a two-story multi-tenant building with a
first floor area of 13,800 square feet and second floor area of 15,000 square feet (Building
4C), a one-story retail building with an area of 8,000 square feet (Building 4D), a 5,000
square-foot bank with drive-thru window (Building 4E), a 3,400 square-foot retail building
(Building 4F), and a 10,000 square- foot Deli and Liquor Store (Building 4G), Planning
Case 08-01 for Crossroads of Chanhassen as shown in plans dated received January 18,
2008, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions common to all site plans:
1.All landscape islands must have a minimum interior width of 10 feet.
2.Staff recommends that Cornell structural soil be used in all parking lot islands.
3.The applicant shall increase canopy trees within the east and south bufferyards to meet
minimum requirements.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
4.The applicant must submit a landscape plan with a complete Plant Schedule and all species
and quantities noted on the plan.
5.The applicant shall remove Norway maple and Colorado spruce from the Plant Schedule. All
species of ash will only be allowed in minimal quantities.
6.A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width and a 30-foot setback from the wetland buffer must be
maintained around Wetland 1. Secondary structures are allowed to encroach up to 50% of
the setback. It appears that the retaining wall has exceeded the allowed encroachment and
should be moved. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance
with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under
the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
7.A vegetation management plan needs to be developed for the buffer. Currently the buffer is
dominated by reed canary grass and agricultural weeds. The buffer for a Manage 3 wetland
must have, at a minimum, 50% dominance of native plant species.
8.A NPDES Phase II Construction Site Storm Water Permit will be required from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for this site. A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed and submitted to the appropriate agencies for
review. The Carver Soil and Water Conservation District is to be invited to the
preconstruction meeting for the project.
9.It shall be noted on the SWPPP that all areas that will not be permanently stabilized within
the timeframe required by the NPDES permit shall be temporary mulched and seeded. A
note shall be included in the dewatering section of the SWPPP that states: “If construction of
the proposed temporary/permanent sediment pond is not completed prior to dewatering, the
City’s on-site construction observer must approve proposed dewatering methods prior to
beginning dewatering.”
10.All silt fence that is not laid parallel to the contours, or that have a continuous run greater
than 300 feet, shall have J Hooks installed every 50 -75 feet. This shall be noted on the plans
and discussed at the preconstruction meeting.
11.Energy dissipation shall be provided at the inlet to the proposed pond and at the end of the
discharge pipe that outlets to the wetland within 24 hours of pipe installation. The discharge
location for the outlet of the proposed pond shall be evaluated to ensure that the proposed
discharge will not cause erosion issues. Reinforced erosion control matting may be required.
12.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond shall be provided. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf reinforcement mat (a permanent erosion
control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. The overland route from the
EOF shall be shown on the plan set.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
13.Inlet protection may be needed prior to installation of the castings for the curbside catch
basins. In that case, all storm sewer inlets shall be protected by at least fabric draped over the
manhole with a steel plate holding the fabric in place.
14.The plans shall be revised to show a 75-foot rock construction entrance wherever construction
traffic will access the site. The rock construction entrance shall be constructed in accordance
with Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall
include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.
15.In the event that dewatering is needed, the field inspector shall be contacted prior to any
dewatering activities.
16.All diversions necessary to direct stormwater flow to the temporary basin shall be clearly
indicated on the plan.
17.A concrete washout area needs to be shown on the plan.
18.A detail for the temporary pond outlet needs to be included in the plan.
19.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
20.Make a notation in the SWPPP that the contractor with overall day-to-day responsibilities of
the project/General Contractor must be the contractor for the NPDES permit. The applicant
needs to have an individual qualified to complete stormwater inspection reports weekly, and
after each one-half inch rainfall event. A box will need to be placed on site for these specific
documents.
21.Cross-access and cross-parking agreements shall submitted to the City for approval and
recording.
22. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a.An additional fire hydrant (one) will be required near the car wash. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location.
b.The 4-inch water line shown for the gas station and car wash is required to be a minimum
of 6 inches per NFPA 13 Sec.15.1.3.1.
c.Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for locations of NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs, and
curbing to be painted yellow. Per MSFC Sec. 503.3.
d.A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants except
as otherwise required or approved. Per MSFC Sec. 508.5.5.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
e.Posts, fences, vehicles, growth, trash, storage and other materials shall not be placed or
kept near fire hydrants, fire department inlet connections or fire protection system control
valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being
immediately discernible. The fire department shall not be deterred or hindered from
gaining immediate access to fire protection equipment or fire hydrants Per MSFC Sec.
508.5.4.
f.When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the
time of construction, except when approved alternate methods of protection are
provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each intersection when
construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with section
505.2 of the MN. State Fire Code. Per Sec. 501.4.
23. Building Official Conditions:
a.The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
b.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
c.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a
permit must be obtained prior to construction.
d.Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the
code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to: allowable
size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be
addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted.
e.Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building
plans are submitted.
f.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as
soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit
procedures.
24.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
Conditions specific to individual sites:
1.Building 4A with an area of 5,300 square feet convenience store, gas pumps and a 2,805
square-foot car wash located on Lot 1, Block 1.
a.The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than 5 feet. The
sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
b.No more than two signs are permitted on the convenience store and one sign on the
carwash buildings. Signs on the convenience store shall be limited to the north and west
elevation. Sign on the carwash shall be limited to the east elevation.
c.Outdoor storage of merchandise may be permitted on the sidewalk around the
convenience store with the condition that the outdoor display of merchandise shall not
impede nor interfere with pedestrian traffic.
d.No signage is permitted on the canopy nor can it be illuminated. Lights below the
canopy must be recessed.
e.A one-way is required for the lane between the gas station and the car wash. Add sign
and arrows showing one-way traffic.
f.Show turning movement for appropriate size delivery trucks.
g.Adjust cleanout on the west side of the gas station so that it is less than 100 feet between
the cleanout and the catch basin.
h.Show drainage arrows and percent of slope to ensure 1% minimum slope across the
asphalt surface and .5% minimum slope along the curb lines.
i.The watermain must be relocated because it is too close to the building. Also, the
sanitary sewer and storm sewer must maintain a 10-foot separation.
j.Shift underground gas tanks 10 feet south of their current location.
2.Building 4B, a multi-tenant building with an area of 11,000 square feet located on Lot 2,
Block 1.
a.Approval of this site plan is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment to allow
drive-thru windows for coffee shops.
b.Signs shall be limited to the east and west elevations of the building.
c.Drive-thru lane shall be widened to 16 feet.
d.Show turning movements for appropriate size delivery trucks.
e.Show drainage arrows and percent of slope to ensure 1% minimum slope across the
asphalt surface and .5% minimum slope along the curb lines.
3.Building 4C, a two-story multi-tenant building, first floor with an area of 13,800 square feet,
second floor with area of 11,000 square feet, located on Lot 2, Block 1.
a.Drop off lane shall be widened to 22 feet.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2008
b.The wall signs are limited to the north and south elevations only. Any signage on the
second floor may not be illuminated.
c.Show turning movements for appropriate size delivery trucks.
d.Show drainage arrows and percent of slope to ensure 1% minimum slope across the
asphalt surface and .5% minimum slope along the curb line.
4.Building 4D, a one-story retail building with an area of 8,000 square feet located on Lot 2,
Block 1.
a.Show turning movements for appropriate size delivery trucks.
b.Show drainage arrows and percent of slope to ensure 1% minimum slope across the
asphalt surface and .5% minimum slope along the curb lines.
5.Building 4E, a 5,000 square-foot bank with a drive-thru, located on Lot 3, Block 1.
a.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon vacation of old Highway 101.
b.Show drainage arrows and percent of slope to ensure 1% minimum slope across the
asphalt surface and .5% minimum slope along the curb lines.
6.Building 4F, a 3,400 square-foot retail building located on Lot 1, Block 2.
a.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon vacation of old Highway 101.
b.Trash enclosure drive shall be widened to 16 feet.
c.Show turning movements for appropriate size delivery trucks.
d.Show drainage arrows and percent of slope to ensure 1% minimum slope across the
asphalt surface and .5% minimum slope along the curb lines.
8.Building 4G, a 10,000 square-foot Deli and Liquor Store located on Lot 2, Block 2.
a.Trash enclosure drive shall be widened to 16 feet.
b.Show turning movements for appropriate size delivery trucks.
c.Show drainage arrows and % of slope to ensure 1% minimum slope across the asphalt
surface and .5% minimum slope along the curb lines.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 2008 as presented.
63