CC Minutes 5-12-08
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
site plan first because that will give the background for why we’re considering the vacation to
begin with and make a little bit more sense so with that let’s go to item 3B and we’ll follow that
up with item 3A. Staff report please.
PUBLIC HEARING: WALGREENS/RETAIL BUILDING: LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 41 AND
HIGHWAY 7 (2499 HIGHWAY 7), APPLICANT: ANXON, INC.:
A. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RETAIL BUILDINGS.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. The item we’re bringing for you
tonight actually has three components to it. Two site plans and a conditional use. The subject
property, Seven Forty One Crossing is located at the intersection of Highway 7 and 41. Lot 1 is
there’s an existing building that will be removed and replaced with a Walgreens. Lot 2 is where
there will be a conditional use for an additional building and restructuring of the existing center
that’s there. So as I mentioned, demolishing the existing building is the first one. The existing
building is if you were to go out to the center today, we’re providing additional parking next to
the Walgreen’s building itself and then providing access for a drive thru. So the shaded areas are
the improvements to the parking lot itself. The entire parking lot will be refurbished but this is
kind of working through the circulation of the site itself. There is the Super America which is on
a separate lot. It’s not included in this project itself.
Councilman Litsey: Can I ask, so there’s not going to be any.
Kate Aanenson: There’s not going to be any changes, correct.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Again the revisions would be, this would be the Walgreen’s and then
showing you the circulation for the drive thru window. This would be pretty similar to the one
that’s currently downtown. The Walgreen’s with the drive thru and I’ll go through the
differences in a moment. And then this would be the new building being placed on the site. A
little over 4,000 square feet. And then what I did want to mention, this was brought up at the
Planning Commission meeting. Connections to the neighborhood. The neighborhood did want,
some of the planning commissioners thought it might be interesting to try to connect this. It’s
very steep to take this trail down. There is an existing trail right now that cuts out onto 41. What
we’re making a condition of is that there be a sidewalk. They’re proposing a trail along this
segment here. And then trying to get back down into the center. There is a trail existing here but
trying to make this connection. It’s a little bit more circuitous. There is a retaining wall behind
this building to try to get a sidewalk along that but again to give entrance way into that to make it
pedestrian. As you recall, this is one of the properties here. The Reed’s orchard piece that we
did recommend changing the zoning to on single family. A little bit more problematic to get
access to. One of the things we did look at in rezoning that is potentially providing access
between this center and then, and it seems problematic based on the grades. That we’ll probably
38
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
still have to come from the south, Mr. Gowan’s property. Or just a right-in/right-out at this time.
We did mention at the time of the rezoning request that maybe these could be connected but that
seems a little unlikely but we did investigate it with this project because we’re looking at
whether or not the parking on this edge of the building made sense in order to provide access, but
because of the grades we just don’t think that will work. So this is the entire site plan with the
landscaping. The Walgreen’s being just short of 15,000 square feet. It does have parking which
does meet ordinance closer than the building because it does provide a buffer. Again the drive
thru window over here. The existing retail center. Additional parking and then the other 4,500
square foot retail, and I’ll go through the architecture on those in just a minute. The Walgreen’s
itself, while it has the same color material and the overall design, it looks different because the
colors are kind of in families or groups, and I just want to switch here to the color palette itself
that they’re using. I got the wrong one up there.
Todd Gerhardt: Wrong one.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I’ve got the Carver County colors up there. Thank you. That’s my
building. That’s my building. That’s her project. Thank you. So actually it’s the same colors
that are on the downtown one and you can see the bricks. So the bottom base of the building
would be the cut face block, which is again exactly what we have in the downtown building.
Again the blend is a little bit different. And then the yellow brick, and then the gray. And I’ll
switch back to the laptop here. So this would be the yellow. Then the beige and then the cut
block on the bottom and then the red brick. Again they’re integrated more and I’ll show you that
on a couple of slides in a minute. So we’ve got the cupola. Kind of the architectural feature here
again mimicking, that’s kind of their landmark over their front door with the medicinal look on
the front. Again similar to what we have downtown. The rest of those windows are spanrow.
The back of the building does not have windows. That faces into the slope. There was a
neighborhood meeting provided by Walgreen’s, prior to the Planning Commission meeting
th
which did have a public hearing on April 15 and nobody spoke to that. To any of those issues
on that. Again it has the same gooseneck lighting that’s similar to the one in downtown. The
one thing that is different, which we’ll spend a little bit of time on is the outdoor recycling,
storage area and then the delivery area, which is a little bit different than the downtown. They do
collect bins for moving of product and so those are stored outside and then the recycling is
outside. This is what the doors would look like. They’re actually louvered doors, and that’s a
little bit different than what we have downtown so this would be the trash and recycling. I’d like
to compliment Sharmeen Al-Jaff who worked on this project. It came in a lot different and she
really pushed it to be a lot similar to the one we have downtown. Again our expectations for the
architecture and this storage area was significantly larger and she worked hard because the one
downtown interior to work to, because it is in the back corner of the site. To blend it into the
site. So this one here is the one that’s downtown. Again you don’t have the outdoor, and it
really didn’t work in the downtown based on the sight lines. Whereas this one, because it’s in
that back corner, did seem to work. There is a condition in the staff report regarding the size of
this garage door and that, I did make a note of that. It is condition number 7 on page 25, just.
We believe that can be narrower. They are a little bit smaller and that’s one of the things we’ve
asked them to look at. But again you can see the colors on the existing brick so there is those
same yellow. Reds, so there is those same hues and the cut face block on the bottom. Before I
go on, any questions on the Walgreen’s then? Those in particular. Okay. So then we have the
39
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
other building that’s up against Highway 41. It is built into the slope and that building again will
have the same colors. While this doesn’t look like brick, it’s the exact same colors that I showed
you on the Walgreen’s building. Again the red’s, yellow’s, brown’s. And it also has the cut face
block. Again as I made clear, the Walgreen’s downtown has the spanrow windows, except for
the front entry, and this too will have some of that.
Councilman Litsey: Has there been a designated use for that yet?
Kate Aanenson: No. No. They do have a side patio, and that showed up on the landscaping and
that. This would be the side closest to the Super America. When you come off of 41.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: So this would be an outside patio. It doesn’t have the street frontage and all
that but that’s what will be in that area. Again you’ve got the retaining wall behind the site, and
I’ll show you how this building ties into the existing center in a minute, and some of the
architectural features. Sharmeen spent a lot of time looking at this. Looking at the balance
between working with the architects. The balance between the building height. The look. So it
will have a sign band on top, and I’ll show you how that compares to what before the sign band
was actually underneath this architectural element and looking at, if you compare it to some of
our other buildings that are closer, or are sitting below street grade and putting the roof. One
example would be Edina Realty building, which we did try to put a sloped roof on because that
was our goal downtown, which seems a little top heavy. Because this is a little bit lower, we
went with this feature to kind of lighten that up and the fact that the existing center didn’t have
that so we tried to mimic some other features. And I’ll show you how the architecture came to
be. So this is looking from Highway 7. This would be the peak for the Walgreen’s. Then
there’s this existing feature right here that they mimic so this right now has kind of a maroon
color on it and the band, and I’ll show you a little bit more detail on that. And this is a little bit
twist on it but this is the other out building and then there’s another peak structure on the back
corner over here. So it’s got the awnings. Some of those other architecture features that we say
made up the pitch element so that was our interpretation of that. So the other nice thing about
these two buildings is we’re actually getting a face lift to the existing center, which we’re pretty
excited about. Improving not only the surface quality but also the structure itself. So you can
see right now there is on the existing building. The signs are below. With the new architectural
element going across, the new sign band will be moved up which I think is easier to read because
it’s hard to see right now but the Subway’s actually underneath that sign band so that will be
nicer. This you can see. This will be the new, have the spanrow windows tied into the front so
that will mimic then the Walgreen’s and all those will look the same and then we’ll also have the
same color on the top so that again that all ties in together so. And this will also be colored so
they match so that really looks unifying treatment throughout the site. So again you can see the
Pet Clips underneath, and now the new sign band again will be on top so again kind of lightening
that with the new treatment. And these poles will be that same cut face block that was on the
material sample. One of the other conditions we had is the sign is 8 foot. We only allow 5 foot.
That’s what’s currently out there. That is also a condition in your staff report. And I’ll identify
that page number. Page number 23. That they have to comply with the 5 foot sign ordinance.
Unless there’s questions on the grading plan or other issues like that, I’d be happy to answer any
40
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
questions that you have. There are conditions of approval. I didn’t speak to the conditional use
but the conditional use, we do allow more than one building on the lot through a conditional use
so this retail building, this is a separate lot. This building is the second building on that outlot. It
does require a conditional use. The findings for the conditional use are in the staff report and we
are recommending approval of that. I didn’t mention but there is a retaining, there is a storm
water pond to the south where all this water is being directed to this existing pond so that’s
where the storm water is heading. So again we believe it’s a well conceived project and we are
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. And there is a variance, or
vacation of utility easement for this project to go forward which we can discuss now too if you’d
like. You want to go with that?
Mayor Furlong: Let’s go ahead. If we’re ready, you can talk about that too.
Paul Oehme: For this project, the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 are shifting to accommodate the
proposed Walgreen’s and there’s currently a drainage and utility easement and the edge of Lots 1
and 2 is shown up here in green. That is no longer required for this development. There’s no
public utilities in the easement. So therefore no drainage and utility easement is required at this
time so. In order to vacate an easement a public hearing would be required so at this time I
would ask if there are no questions on that vacation and request that public hearing be opened as
well.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Oehme? Did I read the report correctly that
we’re not replacing this drainage easement over the new lot line?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. It’s an interior lot line. There’s no public water or sewer
associated with this site that’s going to be extended. We don’t own or maintain it. It’s
underneath a private parking lot so we don’t have any reason for replacing the drainage or utility
easement.
Mayor Furlong: You mean from a drainage standpoint, to the extent that these properties are at
some point owned by two separate parties?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, exactly. The parking lot, the storm water system is owned by the owner of
the facility. We don’t own storm water catch basins on the site, nor do we maintain them.
That’s a privately held system.
Mayor Furlong: Is the pond a public pond?
Paul Oehme: That pond is public, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And that we already have control of.
Mayor Furlong: And we have access to that.
41
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Paul Oehme: That’s an outlot and we do have access.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That’s the trail that we can.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any questions regarding anything that we’re heard to this point?
We will open the public hearing in a moment on the vacation but any questions for staff on the
site plan presentation?
Councilman Litsey: Two real quick questions. One is on that smaller building, what’s that
going to look like from Highway 41? Are they going to have, you know air conditioning units
and stuff on top of the roof that would be visible?
Kate Aanenson: No. Thank you for bringing that up. I meant to mention that. There’s parapet
walls, 2 to 4 feet on all the buildings. We did discuss with the architect that on, let’s see I’ll go
to this slide. That those parapet walls again, you’re dropping down pretty significantly coming
off of 41. That those air conditioning units, HVAC be placed as much to this side so you
wouldn’t see any of that and we do have a couple little buildings that are in that situation above
the grade and so we’ve communicated with that and that’s reviewed when the plans come in, as
close to 41. And again, the parapet is about 2 to 4 feet in height so they should not be seen.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. The other thing isn’t really related to this but, well it’s related but
not directly. Is the traffic issue. Now I don’t know if there’s ever been discussions with MnDot
or whatever but, and I’m not advocating certainly another signal light there but it’s already can
be difficult to get across there and this will add to that traffic. Has that been looked at?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we continue to talk to MnDot about that access and actually the school
access too.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Paul Oehme: The middle school access and trying to gain a signal or some sort of a controlled
intersection at each of those, each one of those intersections. But at this time none of those,
neither of those accesses meet any warrants on MnDot’s criteria for a signal. We’ll still continue
to monitor and discuss that issue with MnDot to see if something can be warranted in the future
to make that improvement because we do feel that there’s a safety concern out there. Especially
on 41.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah I think we looked at too, I know Paul has driven it with MnDot, as has
Sharmeen to look at the potential when Mr. Gowan develops. Making that intersection at the
junior high, which would give a break in some of this but.
Councilman Litsey: Which would slow it down.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And the one on 7 is a right-in/right-out only. It’s not a full access,
you’re right.
42
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Yeah. That’s good you thought it through so that’s fine. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: To follow up on that, the property to the south of this property, so that was one
of the properties that we were looking at rezoning and obviously that’s not a factor here but for
access and what I heard you say is that given topography in the area, access is probably not
appropriate.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: From this property. To the property to the south with the pending change in
zoning. I hate to ask this at this point in the comprehensive plan but is that something that, does
it still make sense to go forward with that other property.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Or is that something we can talk about. I don’t want to bring it up...
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think that’s very appropriate. We did give it maybe a medium density
for an office you know, and again that would depend on how you know the traffic works and
timeliness but for right now in the short run this property could only have right-in/right-out
unless it was residential. You know we could still try, you know ultimately have a stub street to
the south when that property.
Mayor Furlong: Which would provide full access to the grade school?
Kate Aanenson: Right, exactly.
Mayor Furlong: So there’s some…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and we did drive around, as we do on all these properties, to kind of
assess the situation. It just appeared way too steep to try to make that work.
Mayor Furlong: So the bottom line is there’s no reason that we should try to preserve some of
that for access.
Kate Aanenson: Right, that was our original.
Mayor Furlong: With this site plan with the property to the south.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Other questions at this point for staff?
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate can you tell me for the trash enclosure for, well actually for the
loading area. Has there been any discussion about what we’ve done to control the noise?
43
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Kate Aanenson: We do have hours for pick-up and we believe if you look at the slope that’s on,
it’s a heavily wooded area on this side and the houses are set back quite a ways. I think that was
one of the issues that we looked at reducing the size of that. It was originally 25. I think it was
even bigger than that. The length of that, so we worked hard, or Sharmeen did to try to reduce
that, for the noise factor. We do manage that through complaints. If there are complaints
regarding too early a trash pick-up but it should be the normal business hours.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not then let’s go ahead and
open up the public hearing with regards to the vacation of the public, of the drainage and utility
easement. No one on that? Without objection we’ll close the public hearing then on that matter.
There was a gentleman who wanted to make some comment on the overall project so sir, if you
wanted to do that now, this would be the appropriate time. Please state your name and address
for the record please.
Brian Wutzke: Certainly. Brian Wutzke, 2280 Melody Hill Road. Just outside the 500 foot
perimeter of this property to the lower right corner of the hill. I look down on the property from
our house. Just a general comment. I think it’s a nice project. Giving the neighborhood a face
lift there. One thing I would not like to see that would make it a perfect project is any form of
LED or lighted sign that would flash and blink, kind of like you see in Las Vegas. And some of
the surrounding.
Mayor Furlong: You want to leave those in Vegas?
Brian Wutzke: Yeah, exactly. What happens in Vegas, stays there so. I’d like to see this project
carried out as it’s in the plans short of having that LED sign.
Mayor Furlong: Well that, the sign was raised by staff with regard to the size of it. Maybe if
you could point out the location of that. Is that a monument sign?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. There’s a monument sign. It’d be up in this area right here, but just for
the record too, as of right now there isn’t any signs facing the neighborhood. That’s our city
code and we wouldn’t permit any in the future and so if it’s a lit sign, it’s not allowed to face the
street. So there wouldn’t be signs in the back.
Mayor Furlong: There would or would not on the new?
Kate Aanenson: There would not be on the backs of these buildings either so they wouldn’t be
facing, whether they’re neon or not, they wouldn’t be lit facing you.
Brian Wutzke: Okay, thanks for the remark. Appreciate that. Those were my concerns so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so if that addresses your concerns, you’re all set then?
44
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Brian Wutzke: Well, I guess irregardless of what side it’s on, I would like to stay away from the
LED type signs and keep the neighborhood looking nice. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thanks.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just for clarification. They are proposing an LED in the location that
Kate showed you.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. This one here, right. Which is similar to what they have downtown but I
don’t think you can see it from a residential area. Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Is that, as long as they meet the conditions in the staff report.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Those conditions.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. 5 feet high.
Mayor Furlong: Smaller and meeting the area as well, the size of the logo, then that meets our
current sign ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Kate Aanenson: It is a neighborhood business district which has a more restrictive sign criteria
than the general business so the one downtown is larger.
Mayor Furlong: Gotch ya.
Kate Aanenson: I believe.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other, anyone else that wishes to provide public comment
here? No? Alright, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? Comments or questions.
Comments or thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah I think, my only comment is I think it’s a pretty quiet council
on this project because it’s already a working commercial space. You know we’ve all been there
and we know how it works and I think Walgreen’s has definitely been an asset to downtown
Chanhassen and I’m assuming it will be also on Highway 7 so I really have no comments
regarding it except I approve of it.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other comments? Thoughts?
45
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: No, I think it’s an improvement over what’s there definitely. It will help
clean that up quite a bit and as long as the Happy Gardens stays.
Kate Aanenson: Happy Gardens is staying.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Happy Gardens II.
Councilman Litsey: Happy Gardens II. For the buffet. No.
Mayor Furlong: For your friends.
Councilman Litsey: For my friends.
Roger Knutson: You going to make that a condition?
Councilman Litsey: Well if I can.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other thoughts or comments? Fairly straight forward. I
think to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s comments, it’s a moderate expansion. There’s one new
building. There will be two new buildings but one will be replacing another one so it will be, it
isn’t a significant increase. And the gentleman’s concerns about the sign I think were answered
and fortunately our ordinances are already in place to deal with those issues so with that, if
there’s any other comments or thoughts. We have a couple of motions before us this evening.
The first is the approval of the motion to approve a resolution vacating the easement that is found
on the first page of item 2, excuse me, 3A, or page 137 in the electronic packet. And then the
second motion, without objection I think we can take these both together. The second motion I
believe is found on page 168 electronically or page 20 of the staff report for item B. Are you on
top of it this time?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ve got it.
Mayor Furlong: I’m trying to help organize. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’d love to make a motion again. I’d like to make a motion that the
City Council approve a resolution vacating 10 feet of drainage and utility easement between Lots
1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, Without objection then, let’s go ahead with the second motion then.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. I’ve got to find it.
Mayor Furlong: 168.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 168. Here I am. I’d like to make a motion the City Council approve
a two site plan consisting of a 14,490 square foot retail building containing a pharmacy with a
46
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
drive thru and a 4,500 square foot retail building and upgrade the façade of an existing strip mall,
Planning Case 08-05 for Seven Forty One Crossing as shown on plans dated Received March 17,
2008, revised May 1, 2008, and including the attached Findings of Fact and recommendations,
subject to the following conditions, now some of these conditions have been X’d out so do I still
count them in?
Kate Aanenson: As shown. I’d just say as shown on the staff report. There’s one other motion
and that’s for the conditional use with Findings of Fact, which is just like 5 more pages forward.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. So what is the language you want me to use for this then?
Mayor Furlong: I think conditions as.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: As staff.
Kate Aanenson: As shown. As stated in the staff report.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: As stated in the staff report. Okay based upon the conditions as
stated in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: And that would include conditions specific to the individual sites. Correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then there’s one more motion you said?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that’s on the conditional use.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then I’d like to make a motion the City Council approve the
conditional use permit 08-05 to allow two buildings on a single lot, and including the attached
Findings of Fact and recommendation, with the following condition 1.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second it.
Mayor Furlong: You get the easy part.
Councilman McDonald: I know.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution #2008-36: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded
that the City Council approve a resolution vacating ten (10) feet of drainage and utility
easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
47
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council
approves the two site plans consisting of a 14,490 square-foot retail building containing a
pharmacy with a drive-thru and a 4,500 square-foot retail building and upgrade the façade
of an existing strip mall, Planning Case 08-05, for Seven and Forty One Crossing as shown
in plans dated received March 17, 2008, revised May 1, 2008, and including the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions common to both site plans:
1.All site improvements, including the building pad for the future retail building and
remodeling of the existing strip mall, must be constructed concurrently.
2. If importing or exporting of material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
3.Work with staff to develop additional treatment of stormwater for this site.
4.Revise the drainage calculations. The drainage calculations state an assumption of off-site
runoff without information as to how the assumption was made. E4 is shown in the rational
method calculations but is not shown on the drainage maps. Darken drainage boundaries so
that the map is easier to follow. Also, the pond south of this site has an additional inlet and
outlet that are not shown on the plan The pre-development runoff rates must be maintained
post-development for a 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm event.
5.All of the utilities within the boundary should be privately owned and maintained. These
utilities must be covered by a cross-access agreement.
6.Determine actual elevations of existing utilities. The ductile iron watermain must be poly
wrapped.
7.Each new building is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. Lot 1, Block 1,
Seven Forty One Crossing will get credit for three trunk sewer and water charges. The 2008
trunk hookup charge is $1,769 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,799 per unit 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.
8.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 must also notify the
City after installation of the erosion control and 48 hours prior to the commencement of
grading. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the
MPCA and the Dept. of Health.
9.The construction details shown on the plan must be updated to the 2008 City of Chanhassen
Specifications.
48
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
10.The applicant shall submit a set of “as-built” plans signed by a professional engineer upon
completion of the construction of the site.
11.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a)A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) is not required.
b)As building plans are submitted I will review and comment on them as necessary.
“No Parking FireLane”
c)Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for location of signs and
Per MSFC Sec. 503.3
curbing to be painted yellow.
d)A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants except
Per MSFC Sec. 508.5.5
as otherwise required or approved. .
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 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
Per MSFC Sec. 508.5.4
immediate access to fire protection equipment or fire hydrants.
12.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 high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
d)Of the 234 parking spaces proposed a minimum of seven must be handicap accessible
with two of the seven “van-accessible”.
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 plan review and permit procedures.
13.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
14.The minimum depth of all recessed walls is four inches.
15.Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment
must be screened from views.
16.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the vacation, conditional use permit
and administrative subdivision.
17.All monument signs may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. The logo may
not occupy more than 15% of the sign area.
18. Wall-mounted signs shall meet ordinance requirements
49
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
19.Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide
adequate levels of safety. The ordinance requires no more than 0.5 foot candle at the
property line. Light fixtures and site lighting plans shall meet ordinance requirements.
20.Environmental Resource Specialist Conditions:
a.Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements. A
revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior toissuance of a building
permit.
b.All landscape islands shall have a minimum inside width of 10 feet.At least one
additional landscaped island or peninsula is needed in the parking lot.
c.Approval of clearing limits along the west property line must be given by the city
before any trees are removed.
d.Existing trees on the west property line shall be removed only within the proposed
grading limits. No proposed landscape material will be allowed to be planted within
the existing wooded area unless approved by the City. Planting locations must be
field located.
21.Water Resource Coordinator Conditions:
a.A rainwater garden shownin the northwest corner of the propertyshall include the
following design parameters: The Erosion Control/SWPPP Plan and Landscape Plan
s:
shall be modified per this the followingrequirement
1.Underdrain shall be installed and connected to the proposed stormwater
conveyance system;
2.Engineered soils shall be incorporated into the raingarden per the 2005
Minnesota Stormwater Manual unless soil borings are provided for this area
indicating appropriate soils for infiltration already exist;
3.Deep rooted plants shall be used in the raingarden;
4.The feature shall drain within 48 hours and shall not exceed 18 inches of
inundation;
5.The raingarden area shall be protected so as to preclude the operation of heavy
equipment in the area.
b.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies and comply with their conditions of approval.
22.
The proposed trail in MnDOT right-of-way will require a limited use permit (LUP) from
Also, the
MnDOT. This permit must be secured by the developer prior to construction.
applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection from the trail to the interior of the
development.
23.Upgrade of the building façade of the existing strip mall shall occur prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy of either of the new buildings.
Conditions specific to individual sites:
50
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Retail Building (Walgreens) with an area of 14,490 square feet located on Lot 1, Block 1:
1.Remove the multiple tenant building to be demolished prior to commencement of grading.
2.The grading plan needs to be revised Normal water level of the existing pond should be
shown on the plan. Existing contour information should be shown 100’ north of the site.
Show emergency overflows on the plan. A benchmark shall be added to the grading plan.
Keep a minimum 2% slope in the grass areas, 1% in the pavement areas, and .5% along the
curb lines.
3.The applicant shall provide the City the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of
credit or cash escrow in the amount of $12,000.00 to guarantee the installation of the
stormwater treatment, erosion control, and seeding.
4.Revise the plans to reflect a maximum hard surface coverage of 65%.
5.The overhead door along the south elevation shall be redesigned to reflect a door design
th
similar to those located on the north elevation of the Walgreens building located on West 79
Street.
6.The applicant shall revise the plans to reflect the reduction in the size of the trash enclosure
from 50 feet to 19 feet in width.
Retail Building with an area of 4,500 square feet located on Lot 2, Block 1:
1.The grading plan needs to be revised. Normal water level of the existing pond should be
shown on the plan. Show emergency overflows on the plan. A benchmark shall be added to
the grading plan. Keep a minimum 2% slope in the grass areas, 1% in the pavement areas,
and .5% along the curb lines.
2.The retaining wall located east of the future retail building shall be constructed at the time of
the construction of the building. This will help minimize the size of the retaining wall if a
smaller building than proposed is constructed. 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.
3.The applicant shall provide the City the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of
credit or cash escrow in the amount of $4,000.00 to guarantee the installation of the
stormwater treatment, erosion control, and seeding.
4.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of Conditional Use Permit 05-05.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
51
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council
approves Conditional Use Permit 08-05, to allow two buildings on a single lot, and
including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, with the following condition:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon approval of the vacation, site
plan and administrative subdivision.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
CARVER COUNTY SERVICE CENTER, LOCATED AT 7808 KERBER BOULEVARD,
APPLICANT, CARVER COUNTY: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
13,260 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The Carver County service center is located 7808 Kerber
Boulevard. It’s kind of kitty corner to where we are now. Just south of the bank and north of,
actually east of Target and then north of office industrial park. Access will be off of Kerber
Boulevard and then also there’s a drive that’s currently being used by Target that’s for their
unloading, so this is an active street on Pica. The Planning Commission did hear this project and
th
hold a public hearing on April 15 and they did recommend approval of it. The site is well
situated in the fact that it’s in the core of downtown. Easy access for people that want to connect
to other services so we’re excited about the location and the way the architecture lays out and the
views between City Hall and this building itself, and the views that they’ve created match up I
think really well. The building itself as it’s laid out, the site plan has access from Kerber
circulating around through. They will have a drive thru window and then coming back out onto
Pica, and again the circulation works well on that. We don’t believe there will be conflict. This
is people mostly exiting the bank on that site. The layout of the site again. A plaza out front
which is just north of the building. In this area right here. Landscaping is really a nice feature
for those people that are waiting to do business or just want to enjoy kind of the, what we have
out here in front of city hall. It’s very, very nice. It meets all the conditions of the city ordinance
itself. The orientation. It does provide for two complete stories of offices and then all the
HVAC will actually be in the downstairs of this building, so it’s a little bit different. Then some
of the other buildings that we see that put it on the roof. The material itself, let’s switch to that.
You saw it a second ago, the colors. The brick, and I’m not sure if I’ve got that on. Here. There
we go. So we’ve got the brick and then the yellow and the green stucco with the metal clad
windows and the metal framing around that and then the retaining wall’s a little bit different
color, and I’ll switch to that in this building elevation. So again we think the architecture itself is
very, very nice. Highly articulated. A lot of windows kind of reflecting the office look with the
two stories. The massing in the three colors. Again as I mentioned, it has two complete stories.
The first story will comprise of the Carver County services and then right now there’s a potential
for the lease space. And then on the lower level would be all the HVAC equipment on the lower
level. Providing for an elevation so again, it’s a very nice building. Especially the way it’s laid
out and the orientation we thought made a lot of sense for the view perspective too. And the
overall site circulation works very well too. So with that we are recommending approval of the
site plan with the conditions in the, I think Bob did an excellent job in working with the architect
and the Carver County to work through the issues there. The Planning Commission didn’t have
a lot of concerns on the project either. So with that we are recommending approval of the
52