The URL can be used to link to this page

9. Rezoning Acres from BG to PUD, A Preliminary and Final PUD and Site Plann Approval for the Target Dev. 3- C I T Y O F PC DATE: Sept. 16, 1992 • ��i C 11 A N H A till CC DATE: Sept. 28, 1992 i� , ...\.. ,- CASE #: 92 -5 PUD, 92 -2 SPR I 92 -6 IUP 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval 1 Preliminary Plat I Site Plan Approval for Target Store Z Interim Use Permit for grading entire site 1Q V LOCATION: West 78th Street, north of Hwy. 5 east of Powers Blvd. and west of Monterey 1 1 Drive a 0 APPLICANT: Ryan Construction RLK and Associates • 4 700 International Centre 922 Main Street Q 900 Second Avenue So Hopkins, MN 55343 1 / Minneapolis, MN 55402 1 PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business I ACREAGE: 22.03 acres DENSITY: I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BG, General Business I S - Hwy. 5/ IOP Industrial Office Park ri E - BG, General Business 1' — W - R 12 High Density Residential 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. I PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant stand of mature trees including oaks, elms 1 (n basswood and box elders. The site slopes to the south. Currently, a portion of this site is farmed. I 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial . 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 2 • I PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota will be the developer of the Chanhassen Target store and outlot/retail sites. This will be the first retail project Ryan Construction has developed in I Chanhassen. Target stores will be the owner of the Target store and property. The entire property is 22.03 acres including a 116,822 square foot Target store (10.29 acres), Outlot B offering space for 15,000 to 17,000 square feet of future retail development (5.91) acres, and I Outlot A (1.54 acres) tree preservation area. The HRA is also considering a gateway treatment on a portion of Outlot B, which would be approximately .50 acres is size. The gateway area is located near the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. It would be occupied by some sort of I monument and a landscaped area to be designed by the city. The total acreage does include the Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. Staff had recommended that this area be added to the PUD at the time of preliminary plat approval. 1 At this time, Target is requesting site plan approval. Approval for any development in Outlot B will come at a later date. Individual site plan approvals will be required. The applicant is 1 requesting a grading permit as well as preliminary PUD and plat approval. The entire proposal has changed since the last Planning Commission meeting. Most significantly I these changes include the design of the Target store, the design of Outlot B and a proposed relocation of West 78th Street. The proposed touchdown location of West 78th Street at Powers Boulevard has been moved 120 feet to the South. The relocation would bring the road closer to I Hwy. 5. It appears that this relocation may work, but approval from the County Traffic Engineer, MNDOT, and the city will be required. If the road remains in the original realignment instead of the current Ryan proposal, the conceptual configuration of Outlot B would need to be 1 revised. The major concerns of the Planning Commission at the time of conceptual review were the view 1 (appearance) of Target from West 78th, increasing the amount of landscaping in the Target parking lot, lack of access between Target and the buildings in Outlot B, and the design of the I Outlot B. Staff feels that these issues have been successfully addressed in the revised site plan. At the time of conceptual review, Ryan Construction has proposed 3 alternatives for Outlot B. I The preliminary PUD has focused in on one design for Outlot B. This version includes four buildings ranging from 15,000 to 17,000 square feet located on 5.19 acres. The design for Outlot B also shows a redesigned road that provides a better flow through the development. As before, I the exact tenant mix remains unknown. However, there will be a maximum of only two fast food outlets. The purpose of the concept plan is to establish an overall layout of the outlot along with standards for building design, landscaping, pedestrian access and signage. We believe the I current proposal, when combined with conditions proposed by staff, will be effective in directing the satisfactory development of this area. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 3 A significant amount of landscaping has been added to the Target parking lot. In addition, the amount of impervious surface has been reduced. The parcels that are included in the Target PUD plan includes the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots 1 -5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Lot 1, Block 2, and Burdick Park Addition, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. If the road moves to the south an outlot, 1.41 acres in size, will be created. It is envisioned that this would be combined with land to the north owned by the James Company. 1 There is a large stand of mature trees located on this site. The HRA will be acquiring these trees and the Target store will be tucked against them. Loading docks and access will be located off of Picha Drive via Monterey. Therefore, all loading will be screened from view. The Target store will have the 8 inch tile glazing with blue, green and red located at 8 feet, 10 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The plan proposes a painted masonry with dark tan on the bottom one -third and light tan on the top two - thirds. Block columns, 26 feet in height, will be placed along the front entrance side of the building. The building will be 28 feet in height including a 3 foot 4 inch parapet wall. At the top of this wall will be a 1 corbelled element. The parapet wall would block all views of HVAC equipment; this would include views from Hwy. 5. A pitched roof element to the roof has been proposed over the entrance to the Target store. This 1 pitch element is proposed to be a metal standing seam, bronze in color. This design element has been carried around to the West 78th side of the building. A facade punch out has been shown. The facade element will have a metal standing seam roof placed on 20 foot columns. There will be some back lighting to these elements, that should help soften the building. Staff feels that the design on West 78th is superior to the proposal submitted earlier. Although the building is of necessity, quite large, the new architectural elements are more reflective of downtown Chanhassen. We believe it will be one of, if not the most attractive Target in the Twin Cities area. This development proposal calls for realigning West 78th where it touches down on Powers Boulevard. This proposal would move the road approximately 120 feet to the south or close to Hwy 5. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch (SRF), the city's traffic engineering consultants, advised the staff that this alignment may work. Tentatively, MNDOT and the Carver County Traffic Engineer concur but review and approval from these agencies as well as the city would be necessary before this alignment is approved. At the time of writing, the exact location of the road remains undetermined. The alternative alignments have no impact upon the Target site, only Outlot B. The right -of -way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from the centerline for the entire length of the development. The 50 feet allows for two through traffic lanes, required turning lanes and, in some areas, sidewalks and landscaped boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch (SRF), will be preparing the road design for West 78th. The Target proposal shows 3 access points into the proposed development; one at the entrance to Target, one into the Target parking area, and 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 4 one into the Outlot B parking area. SRF has recommended that the access closest to Powers 1 Boulevard servicing the outlot be a right turn- in/turn -out only. A signal may be warranted at the Target entrance. 1 Staff is recommending the use of the PUD zone for several reasons. These reasons include: preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees), improved pretreatment of storm water, improved and coordinated architectural standards (pitched roofs, uniform signage and building ' design), coordinated site development, traffic management and design techniques (reducing the potential for traffic conflicts), screening of undesirable views of loading areas. Staff believes that this project is well conceived but a few issues still need to be finalized before final approval of the PUD. The use of the PUD zone for this site shall ensure the type of development desired for this area. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to PUD preliminary plat, site plan, and interim use permit for the Target store subject to the conditions in the staff report. Site Characteristics This site is currently vacant, although a portion of the site is planted with corn. There is a produce stand located on the property that has, been there for a few years. There is a 3 plus acre area of trees. The site slopes towards Hwy. 5 and is approximately 25 feet below the road grade on Hwy. 5. The city, in conjunction with Barton Aschman, is in the process of developing a 1 Corridor Study for Hwy. 5. The views from Hwy. 5 and the proposed development in this area is critical to the image of the city. The site is bordered by 3 major collectors, Hwy. 5, West 78th, and Powers Boulevard. SRF has been working on the West 78th Improvement District. Recently, the City Council has approved the location of traffic signals at Laredo, Kerber, Great Plains and Market. SRF is also working on the relocation and design of West 78th Street. There is a significant change in elevation from the Target site to the Burdick property to the east. There is a need for a retaining wall for the 5 to 6 feet in elevation difference. Access to the property to the east will be gained through the Target parking lot. 1 Background The parcels that are included in the Target PUD plan include the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, Lots 1 -5 and West Village Heights subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1 and Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. The total acreage to be rezoned is 20.62 acres if the road is moved to the south 1 and 22.03 acres if the road is located on the proposed Comprehensive Plan alignment. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 5 The Burdick Park Addition, approved in 1990, platted this area into 5 lots. Each of these lots PP P could be developed individually. In the worst case scenario, they would each have incompatible architecture, individual pylon signs and separate entrances onto West 78th Street. At the same time, traffic generation would be similar to the current Target proposal. The PUD concept plan for Target was approved by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1992, and is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 14th. The HRA will acquire the property where the development is proposed. This purchase is contingent upon receiving all city approvals including rezoning, site plan, subdivision, etc. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 22.03 acres from BG, General Business to 1 PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. 1 Section 20 -501. Intent Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: P g 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive 1 environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. There is a significant stand of trees located on the southeast comer of the site. These trees include oak, elm, ash, basswood and box elder. The HRA will be acquiring 1.54 acres of the trees. This will include the area that is predominately oak, so that the trees are preserved. These trees are highly visible from the Hwy. 5 corridor and their preservation will be an asset to the city. They will offer considerable screening of a portion of the Target store and all loading areas. 1 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 6 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. ' Findin . The subject property is triangular and bordered by 3 major collectors. The J P Pe m' Y major in the PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If this were to develop separately as individuals parcels, signage, landscaping, lighting and architecture would not be compatible. The coordination of the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. There will be a comprehensive storm drainage system. The building pad on Outlot B will have a common access as opposed to separate drives. 1 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The applicants are proposing to submit individual buildings plans for each development lot. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned manner. Higher quality development will 1 result. There will be compatibility with the development occurring in the CBD. 4.. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along 1 significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. Sidewalks will be placed along West 78th and Powers Boulevard. Staff is also 1 recommending sidewalks along the western side of the road through Outlot B and a pedestrian access between Target and Outlot B. In addition, the HRA is proposing a gateway treatment adjacent to Powers Blvd. Additional landscaping will be provided 1 along West 78th, Powers Blvd. and Hwy. 5. The back of the Target store will be against the trees and all loading will be screened from view. 1 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. F indi n g . The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. This area is adjacent to the Market Square development. The property north of the site is also zoned commercial and guided for commercial development. The city is currently ' reviewing a multifamily development in the vicinity. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. ' Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 7 Find The Park and Recreation Commission have recommended that sidewalks be placed along West 78th and Powers Blvd. The Commission also recommended that the park and trail fees be received in lieu of park and trail dedication. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. Not applicable to this proposal. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and 1 the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Chanhassen is one of the few suburban communities that is able to have a pedestrian oriented CBD. This is possible by the creation of a centralized "downtown ". There is a park and ride facility in the area and the downtown is connected by sidewalks. 1 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. 1 Finding. Access to this site will be from Hwy. 5, Powers Blvd. and West 78th. The City Council has recently approved' the location of 4 traffic signals on West 78th Street at Great Plains, Market, Laredo and Kerber Boulevard. Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch, the city's consulting traffic engineers, have recommended that a signal be placed at the main entrance to the Target store. Of the other 2 entrances, one will be a full access (non- signaled) into the Target parking lot and the other access to the building in Outlot B will be right -in and right -out only. Summary of Rezoning to PUD ary g Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving: • Consistent with Comprehensive Plan • Screening of undesirable view of loading areas • Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees) • Improved architectural standards including; pitched roof, uniform sign and architecture • Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts • Improved pretreatment of storm water 1 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 8 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ' At this time the applicant is requesting preliminary plat and PUD approval as well as site plan PP �1 gP YP PP Pa approval for the Target Site. Staff is recommending the following to be used as the development standards for this PUD zone. ' General Site Plan/Architecture DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for ' language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses 1 Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is requesting that all building sites within the affected property shall be used solely for a Target store and commercial retail development. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target store and property. 1 Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property agent for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements. 1 Finding. The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the City's CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited 1 to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. ' 1. 2. Day Care Center Standard Restaurants 3. Health and recreation clubs 4. Retail 5. Financial Institutions, including drive -in service * 6. Newspaper and small printing offices 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 9 7. Veterinary Clinic I 8. Animal Hospital I 9. Offices 10. Health Care Facility 11. Garden Center (completely enclosed) I 12. Bars and Taverns 13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) * * Drive thru's should be buffered from all public views 1 c. Setbacks I Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing to have all buildings no closer than 45 feet to Hwy. 5, Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street. Parking will be no closer than I 20 feet to West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard and 15 feet from Hwy. 5. Finding. In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any I public right -of -way, parking along right -of -ways shall be set back 20 feet. Buildings located in Outlot B do not meet these standards. Staff is recommending the following setbacks. 111 Street Building Parking I Setback Setback _ West 78th Target 50 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet Powers Boulevard 50 feet 20 feet 1 Hwy. 5 Target 100 feet 20 feet Outlot B 50 feet 20 feet 1 The location of the Target store meets these standards one of the buildings on Outlot B are in I non - compliance. Plans can easily be revised to eliminate the need for a variance. 1 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 10 I d. Development Standards Tabulation Box I USE Lot Area No. of Bldg. Parking Impervious g g P Acres Bldgs. Sq. ft. Surface I Target 10.29 1 116,882 585 76.30% (585 1 required) Outlot A Trees 1.54 none none none none I Outlot B includes 5.19 4 15,000- 200 + 50.90% I gateway area 17,000 (200+ required) Outlot C road 1.41 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 remnant Burdick Addition, n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 Lots l & 2 1 TOTAL 22.03 4 average 132,822 785 + average 63.6 The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for commercial uses. The proposed development meets this standard with an average of 63.6% hard surface coverage. This excludes 1 the 1.54 acres of trees and the .27 acres for right -of -way. Each site plan in Outlot B will have to be reviewed to see if the parking meets the parking 1 standards. Each development must deal with the balance of the site. e. Building Materials and Design I Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that Target will establish the P P P g g 1 architectural standards. Ryan Construction will approve individual site plans to ensure architecture building materials and site improvements. I Finding. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 11 1 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. Painted surfaces I shall be allowed on the Target store only. 2. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. I 3. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. I 4. Metal standing seam siding will only be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, curtain wall on office components or as a roofing I material. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All ground mounted equipment, trash storage, etc. to e fully screened by compatible masonry walls. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the I Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 1 7. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.) III 8. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line and use architectural I themes consistent with each other, the Target store and representative of the Chanhassen CBD. 1 f. Site Landscaping and Screening Applicant's Proposal. The applicant has prepared a very detailed and high quality 1 landscaping plan for the Target store. Sites on Outlot B will be landscaped in accordance with plans approved as development is proposed. The landscaping plan does an excellent I job of buffering views along West 78th Street, breaking up the expanse of the building and breaking up the parking lot area. The amount of landscaping meets or exceeds city standards. Tree preservation is also an extremely strong element. 1 Find In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 12 ' 1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and /or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 1 3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape ' plan for approval with the site plan review process. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall may be ' required where deemed appropriate. 6. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas ' proposed for future development., 7. Tree preservation areas shall be clearly staked and marked by snow fence prior to the start of grading. Staff will use its discretion to require minor revisions to grading including the potential use of retaining walls, if it appears that tree preservation will benefit. Protected trees lost due to development activity shall 1 be replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with plans approved by staff. 8. A satisfactory letter of credit to ensure compliance with approved plans shall be 1 provided prior to the start of grading. g. Signage ' Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing each lot to have a monument sign and 2 pylon signs, one for Target and one for the outlot. Signage would be consistent 1 throughout the development. Finding. Staff is proposing one freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one 1 for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings on Outlot B should be limited to monument signs. 1 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. , 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 13 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. ' 6. Sign permits from the city are required for each sign. 7. Temporary signs will be allowed in a manner consistent with the city sign code. h. Lighting ' Applicant's Proposal. The applicants are proposing a decorative shoe box fixture, with a square ornamental pole. These would be in the parking lot and the street right -of -way. 1 Finding. 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. ' 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. ' 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. Light poles shall use shoe box light standards. Streets /Access This property is bordered by 3 major collectors; State Hwy. 5, County Road 17 (Powers 1 Boulevard), and West 78th Street. The Comprehensive Plan shows the proposed location of West 78th Street. This proposal shows the road 120 feet to the south. This would create a lot remnant where the proposed alignment would go. SRF has stated that this new alignment may work but approval from MNDOT, the Carver County Traffic Engineer, and the city are required. Charlie James, the property owner to the north, has concerns about this realignment and how it impacts future development on his property. If the revised alignment is not selected, revised concept 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 14 plans must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request. SRF is working on the design (West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project) of this street. Plans will be developed jointly with the proposed Target development. All access to the site will be gained off of West 78th Street. The site plan proposes that the most westerly access be a full access intersection. SRF has recommended that this access be a right turn- in/right turn-out only, full access at this location would be dangerous. The other two accesses will be full intersections with a signal at the most easterly access to the entrance to Target. Two of these accesses will also serve the property to the north. 1 Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch has looked at the traffic generation for this area and traffic issues. They have completed a future peak trip generation for the West 78th and Powers area based on ' complete development of this area (both sides of West 78th) as commercial development. Even with total development the traffic as proposed will not exceed the design capacity. The ultimate Average Daily Trip (ADT) for this area going south on Powers and east onto West 78th would be 3830 or an increase from current levels of 800 trips. The projected ADT's from Powers Boulevard turning east onto West 78th Street would be 10,071, an increase of 7,071 trips. This increase occurs only on the short section of Powers between Hwy. 5 and West 78th Street. North of West 78th Street there will be a 10% increase in traffic over existing levels. Again, this ADT's include ultimate development in this area including, Market Square, and the James property to the north which is commercially zoned. During conceptual review the Planning Commission had recommended that a pedestrian access be made between Target and Outlot B. The applicant considers the sidewalk along West 78th ' to meet this need. Staff is recommending that access between Target and Outlot B be tied into a sidewalk along the westerly side of the road into Outlot B. The PUD plan proposed a 6 foot sidewalk along West 78th that will be developed with the Target store. The Park and Recreation ' Commission is recommending that an 8 foot bituminous trail be placed along Powers Boulevard. This trail will connect with the trail along Hwy. 5. 1 Access to the Burdick property to the east will be achieved via the northerly parking lot of Target along West 78th. A retaining wall will also be built at this location. This keystone wall varies in height from 0 - 6 feet and will be 160 feet in length. The wall will be adjacent to the parking lot at the most easterly portion of the site and moves 90 feet to the west as it follows the property line of West 78th Street. At this location a pedestrian plaza is proposed. This element consists of 2 park benches with 3 trees places in wells. 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 15 , Landscaping and Tree Preservation The site has a large stand, approximately 3. 5 acres, of mature trees. These trees include oak, elm, ash, box elder and basswood. The city has already identified these trees as an asset as a part of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study. The HRA will be purchasing 1.54 acres of property for tree preservation. The applicants have proposed thinning out all trees under 6 inches in caliper. Staff is recommending that all trees regardless of caliper remain. The only trees to be removed from the site shall be those trees that are diseased or dead. The HRA is considering a gateway treatment at the corner of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. This would be approximately ' acre in size. The landscaping exceeds the standards of the landscaping ordinance. The landscaping plan shown for the Target site calls for extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the property and planter islands in the parking lot. Trees have been placed in the walkway in front of the Target store. Street trees are shown along West 78th Street. 1 Drainage The majority of the runoff will drain to a detention pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. The pond shall be constructed to NURP Standards from a water quality standpoint and provide storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of 20 cfs under a 100 year storm event. A portion of the northwest corner of Outlot B is proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be constructed with the West 78th Street Detachment 1 Project. The retention pond has been redesigned to a 3:1, making maintenance of the pond more manageable. Staff is recommending that a drainage and utility easement be granted over the area and a graded turf driveway access be designed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure. 1 The project has received approval from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, subject to approval by the City. Utilities Water and sewer are available to the site. It is likely that future development of Outlot B may require the relocation of some portions of the sewer line. 1 1 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 16 1 INTERIM USE PERMIT/ GRADING PERMIT 1 The applicants are seeking an interim use permit to allow site grading to begin on the project this PP P g P fall prior to obtaining final development plan approvals. Staff believes the request is reasonable. The grading being proposed by the developer is consistent with virtually any reasonable commercial use of the site. 1 A grading plan has been submitted as part of the overall development plans; however, they do not indicate whether there will be any phasing or staging of the grading. If this entire site is to be rough graded this fall without the installation of the proposed storm sewer system, interim detention ponds or drainage systems will need to be incorporated as a part the plan prior to approval. The building pad, as proposed, will require 8' of excavation along the north end of the building and the placement of approximately 16 feet of fill along the south side. If the Target site were graded as proposed by itself, the site would be 40,000 cubic yards short of dirt and that is why they are proposing to rough grade Outlot B. 1 Approximately 100,000 yards of excavation/embankment will be involved as part of the overall grading operation. The applicant has indicated that erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be established and topsoil stripped as a part of the initial operation. However, topsoil and poor soil stock piling locations have been indicated on the grading plan submittal. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material will need to be imported onto the site. The applicant has indicated that the haul route will make use of the T.H. 5 and County Road 17 to avoid hauling through the downtown area. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining hauling routes, cleaning of dirt, etc. Working hours will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no work occurring on holidays. The applicant 1 estimates that approximately 6 weeks will be needed to complete the rough grading operation. An administrative fee and a letter of credit will be required prior to issuing a notice to proceed 1 on the rough grading operation. The purpose of securing the grading permit as a separate process is done in case final approval is not secured at this time. The applicants want to ensure that this site is ready for work next spring. The watershed district has reviewed the grading plans and the 1 Target Store project and approved them such with the following conditions: 1. The district approval is contingent upon receiving approval from the city. 2. All erosion control measures shown on the plan must be installed prior to the commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all areas altered on the site have been restored. In addition, they request that all areas disturbed because of construction be restored no later than November 15, 1992. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 17 I 3. The district will required that the proposed storm water detention/sedimentation basins be constructed at the initial stage of the grading process. In addition, there was a farmstead at this location and the watershed district wants to ensure that if a private well exists on the property that it be abandoned in accordance with the Department of Health and Minnesota PCA standards. The standards for an interim use permit are as follows: 1. It meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in Section 20 -232 of the City 1 Code. 2. It conforms to the zoning regulations. 3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the district. 1 4. The date of the event will terminate. The use can be identified with certainty. 5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if necessary for the public to take I the property in the future. 6. The user agrees to any condition that the city deems appropriate for the permission of the I use. The eneral issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20 -232, include the following 12 g g items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort , convenience or I P y, general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. I 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance 1 with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the 111 persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 18 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because 1 of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or 1 interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or 1 historic features of major significance. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Staff is recommending that because this grading plan is consistent with the site plan and PUD standards that staff has already outlined, we feel comfortable that this is moving in the right direction. Again, the reason for the interim use permit is to ensure that the site can be graded and corrections made so that work can begin next year on the project. Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission met on August 11, 1992, to review this project. There was a consensus among the members of the Commission to accept full park and trail dedication fees as a part of this development. The Commission is assuming there will be sidewalks with the development. Fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application. Presently, the figures for commercial and industrial property is $2.500.00 per acre for park dedication and 1 $833.00 per acre for trail fees. SITE PLAN REVIEW 1 Overview 1 Target proposes to build 116,822 square foot building located on 10.29 acres of property. This site will have to be extensively graded and filled to accomplish the 958' elevation. One of the goals of placing Target at this location was to ensure that all roof top equipment would be screened. This proposal calls for a 3 to 4 foot high parapet wall around the entire building screening all heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment. The highest elevation of Hwy. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 19 5 at the bridge deck is 982.69'. The highest elevation on the parapet wall for the Target store would be 984.6'. Therefore, the parapet wall should extend 2 feet above the highest grade of Hwy. 5. Staff feels that this accomplishes one of the major goals of screening all HVAC. In addition, the trees located adjacent to Hwy. 5 will also provide for screening. The site plan, to date, has changed slightly since the conceptual review. The size of the Target store has gone down in square footage by 343 square feet. The location, as it exists on the site, has remained constant. Although the parking lot has been redesigned to take in concerns raised by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. These changes include additional landscaping in the parking lot, regrading of the slope around the retention pond from a 2:1 to achieve a 3:1 for better maintenance, and improved architectural standards, most notably on the West 78th Street frontage. 1 General Site Plan/Architecture As previously noted, staff feels that this design is superior to the one presented at the time of conceptual review. One of the major concerns of the Planning Commission was the blank wall facing West 78th Street. Since this is the main corridor running through the downtown, views of this store were given high priority. Target has come back with a proposal that staff feels addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission. The facade on West 78th Street proposes to have a series of 3 punch out elements. These 3 elements would be spaced 60 feet apart. They are comprised of 20 foot wide columns spaced 14 feet apart with a roof comprised of metal standing seam similar to the roof element placed on the front entrance to the store. The intent of this is to provide a more "human scale" and provide the residential motif on West 78th Street. 1 Staff is also recommending that these elements have a back light to them to help soften the building. One of the other concerns of the design raised by staff and the Plannin g Commission was the view from the front entrance of the building. The design has shown tree wells located in the front entrance of the building with approximately 5 trees to be located in the sidewalk area. Again, staff feels this will help soften the look of the entrance to the store. One of the other major changes of this proposal from the original site plan is the columns placed around the building. Originally these were 10 feet and now they run the whole height of the building, which is approximately 26 feet. There will still be corbel element on the roof. This will be the top of the parapet wall. The intent of this corbel is to give it a strong cap to the top of the building. The colors will remain the same as proposed in the original plan with the dark tan on the bottom and lighter tan on the top, with the 3 color bands. The bands will each be 8 inches in width, the blue will be located 8 feet in height, the green at 10 feet in height and the red at 20 feet in height. This will go around all four sides of the building. One of the other significant issues raised by the Planning Commission concerns views of the parking area located in front of the Target store. This has been somewhat redesigned. There is an access from the parking lot going over to the Burdick property to the east and up in this 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 20 northeast corner is a pedestrian element with park benches and tree wells for 3 trees. Because of the change in grade from West 78th Street to the location of the store, the majority of the 1 parking in this front parking lot will be screened via a change in the elevation between West 78th and the parking lot. West 78th will be approximately 10 feet higher than the parking lot. There is 20 feet of landscaping abutting the property line, the back of the sidewalk, along West 78th 1 Street, plus additional landscaping islands in the parking lot itself. Again, staff feels that this provides an excellent screening for any viewing of parked cars. In addition, the northeast corner of the Target Store will be recessed. The actual height from this corner of the store will only 1 be 21 feet. Again, staff feels this helps soften the visual impact of the massing of the Target Store from this view. 1 Parking provided for this store includes a total 585 parking stalls comprising of 40 compact stalls, 12 handicapped stalls and 533 standard stalls. This meets the standards of this zone at a ratio of 5 stalls for 1,000 gross square feet of building. Target has proposed a 60 foot no -build area on two sides of their building, one being on the south side and the other being on the east side, which is on the Burdick property. Based on the size and type of construction of this building, building code would require a 60 foot no -build zone. The 30 feet shown on the Burdick property is the major concern of the staff. Staff would recommend that in the chain of title that this no- build agreement be placed ensuring that no variances be granted in the future on this property. The no -build to the south of the property should not be a problem since this is in the tree area that the city will own and no development should occur in this area. 1 Access Access to this site will be off of West 78th Street. There are two proposed accesses to Target, one right at the entrance to the Target Store and the other will be approximately 400 feet to the west of this site. A signal is proposed at the most easterly access. Any proposed realignment of West 78th Street should not impact the access points into the Target location. All truck deliveries will enter Picha Drive via Monterey. This will screen any truck loading. Staff feels this separated loading area is very desirable to reduce conflicting car and truck movement. A 6 foot sidewalk is shown along West 78th Street with the entire segment up to Powers Boulevard. The applicants are proposing that when Outlot B is developed that the remaining portion of the sidewalk be developed. 111 The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending an 8' bituminous trail along Powers Boulevard. The Planning Commission had recommended that consideration be given for pedestrian access through the Target parking lot over to Outlot B to ride easy access between 1 Target and any developments that would occur on these outlots. This is not reflected in these plans. The applicants have taken the position that the sidewalk along West 78th Street meets 1 these needs. Staff still feels that a sidewalk could be implemented into the middle of a parking stall standard running east and west that would provide a safe access and would enhance the project. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 21 In order to rovide a more moderate entrance sloe at the easterly access from West 78th Street P P Y to the Target Store, the site plan proposes to lower the elevation of West 78th Street at this location an additional 1 feet from that proposed with the detachment project. The property owner to the north, Mr. Charlie James, has expressed some concerns as to the impact to his property pending further lowering of the roadway. Staff is aware that Mr. James and Ryan Development have had discussions on this issues related to the earth work operations. The impacts to both properties involved excess /shortage of material which should be accommodated by future site grading. Mr. James is also concerned about the proposed realignment of the detachment of West 78th Street the way it bisects his property and has expressed his disapproval of this realignment change. Staff is also concerned that enough time be allowed to conduct the necessary investigation or to address all of the impacts that would be involved in making such an alignment change at this time. Landscaping i The landscape buffer along West 78th Street ranges from 20 to 52 feet from the West 78th Street right -of -way. Landscape will be bermed in combination will have boulevard trees and staff is confident that with the trees that this will screen the building and parking lot from direct view. In addition, the significant amount of trees have been integrated into the parking lot to planter islands. The street trees include a mix of Pin Oaks, Marshall Seedless Ash, Colorado Green Spruce, Black Hills Spruce, and a ground cover that includes Spirea and Potentilla. The landscaping in the large parking area includes Honeysuckle, Snowcrab, and Spirea and Honey Locus. The required parking lot landscaping for the Target Store will be 11,900 square feet. The plans proposed significantly increases that amount to 13,920 square feet. Staff feels that the landscaping plan is a significant improvement over the previous conceptual proposal. The landscaping plan is in compliance with the standards of the zone. 1 Grading/Drainage/Utilities Water Service Water service for the Target Store is proposed to be acquired by connecting a 10" water main 1 located at the westerly limits of Picha Drive and extending and 8" water main along the east and north sides of the building, ultimately tying back into an existing 8" water main along West 78th Street to complete the loop of the system. This water main will also provide future service to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, the line is intended to be a public facility and utility easements will need to be acquired with the plat. Sewer Sanitary sewer for the Target site is proposed to be constructed along the eastern and northern 1 sides of the building and connected to the city's 18" sanitary sewer along West 78th Street. It 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 22 is proposed that this sewer line will also serve Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, this line also is a public facility and will necessitate a 30 foot utility easement. Grading and Drainage The entire site is proposed to be regraded to desired development topography. The majority of the site is proposed to drain into a detention pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. Initially, this pond was graded at a 2:1 slope and its revised plan now reflects the more 1 desired 3:1 slope. Engineering calculations have been provided which show that the proposed pond will be constructed to NURP standards from a water quality standpoint and will provide enough storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of 20 cfs under a 100 year storm event. The proposed sewer detention pond will be located within a drainage and utility easement. Therefore, the city will be responsible for future maintenance and operation of the ponding basin and outlet structure. A graded turf access drive will be constructed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure. Lighting and Signage There are 24 high pressure sodium vapor lamps located in the parking lot. These are generally found in the planter island strips. The code does require that they be 1/2 foot candle at the property line. The applicant has stated that the Target standard is 1 foot at the property, and staff has made it known that they must be in compliance with the city ordinance. In addition, the applicants have stated that Target goes with a red pole. Staff has no concerns that these be a red pole as opposed to the corten steel generally recommended by staff. The signage proposed for this development includes one wall mounted sign with the channel letters located over the Target Store. As laid out in the PUD standards, staff has recommended that this not exceed 15% of the total wall area of the building. In addition, they are requesting a monument sign at the entrance to the Target Store and one free standing pylon sign. Again, staff has spelled out standards in the PUD zone that these signs, the pylon and the monument sign, be architecturally compatible with the building. To date, staff has not received specifics on these signs and would recommend before approval that they be submitted to staff for review. 1 The proposed pylon sign will be 36 feet in total height, with the actual sign face itself being 12' x 12'. The proposed sign will be mounted on the similar masonry material used in the Target 1 Store itself. In addition, it will have the same corbel element on the top that is found on the top of the parapet wall of the Target Store. Staff feels that this is architecturally compatible and meets the intent of the PUD zone. The monument sign is similar in architectural style will be i 8 feet in height with the sign face itself being 6' x 6'. Again, staff feels this is compatible with the PUD zone and would recommend approval of these two signs. 1 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 23 COMPLIANCE TABLE -PUD STANDARDS , ORDINANCE PROPOSED Building Height None 28' top of parapet 1 Building Setback/Public 50' 50' ROW Parking Space 584 585 1 Parking Setback 20' 20' Public ROW Lot Coverage 70% average PUD 76.3% average PUD* Permitted Uses Retail Retail I Building Materials and Masonry /pitched roof Masonry with pitched roof Design element Site Landscaping 11,900 s.f. 13,920 s.f. 1 Parking Screening parapet wall parapet wall 1 screening HVAC screening HVAC Signage 1 pylon 1 pylon - 36' high 1 1 monument - 8' height (144 s.f.) 2 wall - architecturally 1 monument - 8' height compatible (36 s.f.) 1 wall sign Lighting 1 /2' candle at property 1' at property line 1 Variances required - None * No variance is necessary. Lot coverage is computed over entire PUD. Total coverage is 63 %. ** Must come into compliance 1 1 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 24 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On September 16, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended preliminary plat and PUD P g approval. In addition they gave approval for the site plan and the interim use permit for the grading. The Planning Commission recommended modifications to the conditions of approval, these changes have been shown in bold. One major concern of the Planning Commission was the facade on West 78th Street. The Commission asked for further enhancements to the building. The architects for Target have made these changes and staff feels that they meet the concern of the Commission. The Commission also wanted to see additional evergreens placed along West 78th and larger caliper trees in the parking lot. Matt Dimler, who has a produce stand on the subject site, is concerned with the timing of the grading if the interim use permit is approved. There is a significant amount of pumpkins on the 1 entire site. Matt stated that he has a contract with the property owner to use the site through the Halloween holiday. The applicants wanted to start grading the site around the first of October. Staff feels that it may take a few weeks before all necessary approvals are secured before grading can begin. Therefore, the pumpkins will likely remain untouched before Halloween. RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD APPROVAL 1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves preliminary and final plat approval to rezone 22.03 acres of property 1 zoned BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development as shown in Rezoning #92 -6 and PUD #92 -5, subject to the following conditions: 1 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Final Plat. 2. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development. Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and landscaping. 1 3. Pitched roof lines are required on all buildings on Outlot B. Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the ' entry portion and the West 78th side of Target. 4. Not more than two fast food restaurants are permitted on Outlot B. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 25 5. All site plans shall be consistent with the overall impervious surface coverage. The average impervious surface for the entire PUD shall not exceed 70 percent. 6 . All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through color block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 1 7. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces /outlots shall be landscaped or covered with planting and/or lawn material. 1 8. Each site shall be allowed one monument sign near the driveway into the private site, wall signs on not more than 2 street frontages. The signs are subject to the standards of the sign ordinance. 9. Target and Outlot B are each allowed one free standing pylon sign. 1 10. Lights shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed if foot candle at the property line. 11. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers Boulevard. 12. If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected, a revised concept plan must be submitted for Outlot B for city approval within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request. 13. Location of the road shall be as shown in site plan dated September 9, 1992, and the number of outlots shall be limited to four. Each building parcel shall proceed through site plan review. 1 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves preliminary and final plat for 19.85 acres as shown in PUD #92 -5, 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Plat easements needed: 1 A. 20 -foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of proposed watermain. B. 20 -foot wide utility easement over existing 18 -inch watermain through Outlot B. 1 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 26 C. 30 -foot wide utility easement over roposed sanitary sewer through Lot 1. P Y g D. 30 -foot wide utility easement over existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot B. E. Cross easements, ingress and egress, shall be granted with Outlot B and the Burdick Park Addition property. 2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost - sharing formula has yet to be determined). 5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnDOT and Carver County. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the city for all costs associated with soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. 6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B. 7. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. 8. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. 9. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer. 10. Approval from MNDOT, Carver County Traffic Engineer, and the City shall be secured PP � tY g � tY to relocate West 78th Street. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The City Council approves of Site Plan Review #92 -2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of the Preliminary and Final PUD and Plat #92 -5. 1 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 27 i 2. Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot B. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the length of West 78th Street (see Manager's Comments, Page 28 -29). 3. The 3 facades shown on West 78th Street shall have back lighting. 4. Lighting shall not exceed lh foot candle at the property line. After hours lighting shall 1 be limited to security lighting only. 5. Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with a 6' x 6' foot sign ' area and for the pylon sign, 34 feet in height and not exceed 144 square feet in sign area. The monument sign and free standing sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted in the September 9, 1992, site plan. The wall sign shall not exceed 6' x 34' for the Target sign and 6 for the pharmacy sign. 6. The development shall comply with all development standards of this PUD zone. 7. A protected cross walk (stop signs) shall be placed at the entrance to the Target Store. 8. Additional evergreen tress shall be placed in the front landscaping and trees in the parking lot shall be changed from a decorative flowering tree to a tree with a larger 1 canopy (over story). 9. The West 78th Street elevation of the Target store needs to improve the appearance. 10. The West 78th Street detachment project needs to be ordered before building construction can begin (excluding grading). Access to the James property shall be resolved as a part of the Detachment Project. 11. Southwest Metro Transit shall work with Target to find a mutually acceptable 1 location for a bus shelter. 12. The HVAC will be obstructed from view by the parapet wall regardless of the 1 surrounding elevations. INTERIM USE PERMIT 1 "The City Council approves Interim Use Permit #92 -6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and/or drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer systems will not be constructed until next spring. 1 1 Target Development September 16, 1992 Page 28 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles. 1 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as Watershed District. 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. 8. The city shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of the trees and location of snow fences." ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Architectural rendering, signs 3. Letter from Watershed dated September 2, 1992 4. Memo from Charles Folch dated September 9, 1992 5. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 12, 1992 ' 6. Letter from Carver County Engineering dated August 4, 1992 7. Narrative Document from RLK dated September 9, 1992 8. MNDOT letter dated September 1, 1992 9. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated September 9, 1992 10. Letter from Mark Littfin dated September 10, 1992 11. SRF Traffic Study 12. City Council minutes dated September 14, 1992. 13. Planning Commission minutes dated September 16, 1992 14. Revised exterior elevations. 15. Site Plan dated September 9, 1992 Manager's Comments: Target has reviewed the proposed conditions for each of the approvals being sought for Monday evening. I believe that they are comfortable and will comply with all. 1 1 Target Development 1 September 16, 1992 Page 29 I However, Target did ask to meet to discuss whether there was some option other than building the 6 ft. concrete sidewalk leading from their front door to Outlot B. They have built a similar I type of sidewalk in other locations and have found such to be disastrous for motorists not seeing the walkway (curbing) during heavy rains, snow storms, etc. These sidewalks have been the number one source of customer dissatisfaction in their other stores and are extremely difficult to maintain. In addition to vehicle damage claims, the sidewalk has also been the number one cause for pedestrian claims. During Planning Commission approval of this condition, it appeared that the primary objective 1 was one of trying to find a way to increase the overall landscaping and visual affects of the site. Ironically, the sidewalk will actually increase the impervious area and reduce the ability to include trees in the parking area, i.e. the walkway acts as a curb stop for vehicles and, accordingly, 11/2 ft. to 21/2 ft. of bumper space will go over top of the sidewalk itself. This leaves a narrow 2 ft. to 3 ft. band for walking and would not provide an area for tree planting. 1 As an alternative, Target stated that the objective of "screening the site" could be better achieved by moving the entire site plan 15 ft. to the south and installing a berm and additional landscaping along West 78th Street (see attached schematic). The practical affect of the berm together with the lower elevation of the Target facility itself, would be to totally screen the parking lot and building from motorists driving along West 78th Street. In my own mind, this does represent a more reasonable approach to accomplish the objectives of the Planning Commission while not forcing Target to install something (a 6 ft. walkway) which has proven to be dangerous to their customers. 1 The PUD approval, preliminary plat, and interim use permit for grading all appear to include the Charlie James property as a part of the approval. It should be noted that Mr. James will not be a signature to the plat, does not wish to have his property included in the PUD, and definitely does not want site grading to occur on his property. Accordingly, should the Council act to give each of the approvals noted above, staff will modify each of the exhibits to ensure that Mr. 1 James' property is not included in such approval. It should be noted that, assuming that the City Council acted to approve the West 78th Street Detachment Project (Item No. 3), that that approval included the authorization to condemn Mr. James' property from the north property line of the realigned right -of -way to the most southerly property line of Mr. James. Once the condemnation process is complete and ownership transferred to the City, the PUD /plat approvals being given tonight will then properly go up to public right -of -way and Mr. James' remnant parcel south of the proposed roadway would no longer be a remnant parcel, i.e. the entire area would be seen as public right -of -way. P 1-.) (_ 61:) -A -I I (:).? 1 - r - - - , _, IN \ 1 • / I 1 I C? 1 111 iLe i. iimm.......„...._ ----_____ ........_. ... -----.. --. .a Cr ?. - - 4 ILO il • • 1 til . , ! w w \:6 111.1111111. 1 . 11 . 1 . ' • 1 1 VI 0 t t illikttiti, ........... ilk , • jiik f' ' (.- I I I! ° ■ .."40.,, VP4Pat _ A jlittii, i : ( s. 4 Z 4 41 tr V i I ! 1 • . i _ ; I * Alcre : -, - 41ir - ' ii fit Qf ' .7 t ..An ;(3. Qr.,. II 6 _ L-,-) 1 . ...., ,. 4' 0 . Ms , r / .. . ., 1 ,ibb•-....- / 4:0$ t& • -.; 1/ . VP' ha 1 . ,, -ti • , I ' ' - a • 4 . 0. 8, he • ,, —\ 1 7 ir _...... ...., ,4 4, . , . . b 41, I I W II • , 1 IC liaLtil :IMO IffAl 1 • • w-i + V tg 4, , — .4...e_.— - I . 1 - . ........ IP , ____ ........._ 1 • : . , - -, 17 9 - , . -:.- .--... . - • - :- ..:.•:.:::: :,.. II,' --i -----"------ 1 . I - ... _ , - . • :.•: . : ...... :. . : .. .. .. - .. : . , , ., t... .-... c. . ‹...:. ' )ris I& Af, — rsv3 -7.. big ,R013" 1.. \.. :IKE LUCY D e eri — re *- cc* o lk dr"" , ja - t r.: � � sti l !. � � Q - IN ------- — 1 Aa II I' ' — -6 ' . no 0 - • 111.111119% \ ; ■ _. .r,. . .-/III III o I ♦ to mu • le In IL pi — Iv, R \tx t or 4 1 amitill l ag; :7- oc- p rAdiab Oiss 4111116 j N. REENW... i � ....l..• ��il► WO ,, � 'I, ' SARK S ;1161finI MT41111�I�I��4al 111 It MEADOW J . -0110!!!!!;W:- wIl of . ,, E 0-sa,,,,! ` �1 ♦ # ... \\ 1K ANN GREEN PAR , � p ,. i , ♦ 1� ,r Q/ �� ,►� 67,1. v�A��ii�� t� I�fi > d J ; ' :e►': ■ 111 fill .-- . Lt.) %we: -4 slim Int e ' ilm • " rovi .- 1 AKE` `�`,_ - ,,,,_ it; ; i '' 1 . i � ,f NNp Pp , �� i1 41 :: ANN �� tr' 'd .r r:►ras PA K ' i Y tb :s. : °© :kr - sire Z : :� era i ,' n a 4� : rr_ zu a� ■■ �� rill, ■u li �':. . i NAN ■V■11I'C :: -�mm INIMINML,-;, X11 : BOULEVARD :":' �V -K;W Iris i I N CO RT E •ter "RP 1 ' ' -��- salt f HIGN�w 0 -- L I L* ** ° 1 IF IP n 5 t SU ( 1 ` ` . 4 t 1 r r 'al .3 PARK °\ i% \ 1/4 MIN 11 e ,r_.- ...■.,,, < \ 1 ,% -.,' \imad. . t... -1 ‘.. t imul , ,--_--17..._:„. : : :7 -7.--_ 7-:_-. - . 13 Mini. ._ , . o r t � 4 p LAKE SUSAN r I *A t ` ti ' ' ' p = . i iv fi tple,' • 't A q .j P ; , m . � � RK • , t I , • • p.m 10 '92 18:43 TARGET REAL ESTATE P .1 iz; ;,: st - H ..: .. : ... .. . _ _-':: — -- Double F y�y ,,,, A.....-,... "alga : ; ) . - - Aluminum Sign e� +14• . •..:! `` ` Routed out and : y .er' 4 y ' w '.r `r •. �` I h _ .L, 2,, �M•+i�i with. � 1 �(w • • - 3/16" Plexitglasa 474 KLETTA, ,.. �, �yr�� ; l " Target " copy and I r a [- .� z `r.�°" r � j bullseyc to be � '� .sy F- #2283 Rahm & } z Haas Red +, o. r,,-•r. d, e " • F �: ® ° :r -= Sign will be internally • ,.4.-(Ars:74-u .,,, ..•_ High Output Fluorescent lighting ONLY the copy will I ,: n- s _ illuminate at night i i. µ,.` Pa�kgresttnct to gr y ; b/e{ paizited with I . Mathew.'," A(tryiin Polyureth . .. ` = 4� -" ` Paint to match I Colors used in _ the building facs 1 - { 1 i . .� �.... . :t . lo • • 1 . ti t��G -ate II • -. __ __ ...... 1 ropcicr(� 1 >�-kk-kn "ic n ** rw, t,► ww *w *w *trw * *w,rww *w,r * *trw L. tr A X T R q - MEMO / � oar: CITY or:: �xwq�r7• �j7y NO. ES August L , 1' FROM: PHONE: /Z D� g }i l I 1 c0: Fax a: t eitat• rar itt mo *sox to 6. (ry I JON 11 '87 2217 P.2/2 ,.. •.. r. . .... :,.. , „ . . , . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s -0" 1 r.r,Y `r: CO CD 'i •:• J I:• 1 r - - 1 1 I Proposed Chanh Monument Sign Monument MN 4 Pobtocki &Sons - • lora trim _ MOM Cgs 1120 'Sub Ars a. ilogiAkviz%aszvoi woo 1 July3O, 1992 ,., 1 JUL -21 -92 TUE i :: P, 03 1 1 The standard Identification package for the P1 & P2 stores is an interior Illuminated channel 1 letter display at the main entrance as shown, which consists of a 6' buliseye symbol combined with a set of 5' TARGET letters. . An alternate location for the display may be considered 1 • in cases of unusual visibility requirements. Consistency of image is critical to TARGET'S success, therefore, . • any variation must 1 - _ - - �' : II ' be approved '^ II �� _ by TARGET. 1. ((�� ` �, ``II III I I I it Il+ 1 • . -- I = 01 _I r FPO J__ — 1 i . 11 :, 1 4111111111111Ulimmito • • . ' . 4 il 11 t •, ;;!I ;ili t ;II — 1 1 0 : 1 a I J ! E F o ............, ___.............. CURVED PANEL -2 34'4' EO. , 8 E 1 t 1 - Il ' I I(omil n ulaiul�uu�luulul imag � J 1 1 ;at - i Q TARGET 130000000 w I 1 ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE & P2 111 SIGN AREA: COLORS: 1 TARGET LETTERS -130 att. t . . FACES - ROHM& NMS 2283 RED SYMBOL SO. FT. RETURNS CARNIVAL RED TOTAL (6X34) -204 14. ft. ILLUMINATION: 1 CONSTRUCTION: 15 MM CLEAR RED NEON ALUMINUM RETURNS i SACKS - ELECTRICAL: 120V FLAT ACRYUC FACES 1 NOTE: SYMBOL IS COMPRISED OF TWO PIECES: OUTER RING & INNER DOT EXHIBIT B.1.3 02/25/9' 1 ..,.f.a,.. S ; , i fag 1 , ..f Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WWter-shed.District 1 ut „. „ „.fSf+ ° Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 4 1% • 8300 Norman Center Drive t c Suite 300 `� Q, Minneapolis, MN 55437 ' L 832 -2600 Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower I 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 333 -4800 I September 2, 1992 Mr. Francis Hagen, II RLK Associates I 922 Main Street Hopkins, MN 55343 RE: Permit #92 -43: Chanhassen Target: Chanhassen I Dear Mr. Hagen: I The Board of Managers of the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit application as submitted to the District for site grading and utility installation for the I Chanhassen Target to be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of T.H. 5 and C.S.A.H. 17 in Chanhassen. The information submitted indicates that site grading work will be completed by November 15, 1992, with building construction continuing through the 1992 -93 winter months. The District is I considering this item prior to receiving final approval by the City, as requested in correspondence dated August 25, 1992, from the City of Chanhassen. The Managers approve of the grading and land alteration permit subject to the following conditions: I 1. The District's approval is contingent upon full City approval. 2. All erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all areas altered on the site have been restored. If silt fence is used, the bottom flap must be buried and the maximum allowable spacing between posts is 4 foot on center. All posts must be either 2” x 2” pine, hardwood, or steel fence posts. If hay bales are used, all bales must be staked in place and reinforced on the downstream side with snow fence. 1 1 Mr. Francis Hagen, II September 2, 1992 Page 2 3. All areas altered because of construction must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod, wood fiber blanket, or the parking lot restored with a 'gravel subbase within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than November 15, 1992. Area disturbed must ultimately be restored within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than August 1, 1993. 4. The District will require that the proposed stormwater 1 detention /sedimentation basin be constructed at the initial stages of grading operations and be functional during the majority of the site grading. 5. The District notes that a farmstead used to be located on this site and has been razed. The District wants to ensure that if a private well exists on site for domestic supply that the well is abandoned in accordance with Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards. 6. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of construction. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's permit, please call us at 832 -2600. Sincere 1 s�Y o ert C. Obermeyer BARR ENGINEERING C . Engineers for the District Approved by the Board of Managers RILEY- PURGATORY -BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DI R T A A v President Date: ,"` L�A �1 /94' 4' 1 - RCO /pls c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Frederick Rahr Mr. Paul Krauss 23 \27 \053 \FH0902.LTR 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 1 iltp, CHANHASSEN 1 .0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 I MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer I DATE: September 9, 1992 SUBJ: Site Plan and Interim Use Grading Permit Review for the Target Site 1 File No. 92 -11 LUR I In review of the Target site plan submittal dated September 3, 1992, I offer the following comments: 1 WATERMAIN I Water service for the Target site (Lot 1, Block 1) is proposed to be acquired by connecting to an existing 10 -inch watermain located at the westerly limits of Picha Drive and extending an 8 -inch watermain along the east and north sides of the building ultimately tying back into I an existing 18 -inch watermain along West 78th Street to complete the loop of the system. This watermain will also provide future service to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, this line is intended to be a public facility and utility easements will 1 need to be acquired with the plat accordingly. 1 Water service to Outlot B is available via an existing 18-inch watermain along West 78th Street. A watermain plan for Outlot B has not been submitted; however, it is likely that development of this outlot will necessitate relocation of some portions of the existing 18 -inch I watermain. A 20 -foot wide utility easement over the alignment of the existing 18 -inch watermain through Outlot B shall be established with the new plat. Fire hydrant spacing and location requirements shall be determined by review of the Fire Marshal. 1 Existing soil conditions may necessitate the use of granular pipe bedding for the watermain installation. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for I Construction shall be implemented and govern construction of all public improvements on the site. t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 Page 2 1 SANITARY SEWER Sanitary sewer for the Target site is proposed to be constructed along the eastern and northern sides of the building and connected to the City's existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer along West 78th Street. It is proposed that this sewer line will also serve Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 of Burdick Park Addition. Therefore, this line will be a public facility and will necessitate acquiring a 30 -foot utility easement accordingly. Sanitary sewer service is available to Outlot B via an existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer line along the south right -of -way of West 78th Street. A sanitary sewer plan for Outlot B has not been submitted; however, it is likely that future development of Outlot B will necessitate the relocation of some portions of this existing sewer line. A 30 -foot wide utility easement for the existing sanitary line through Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot B shall be dedicated as a part of the plat. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications shall be implemented and govern 1 construction of all public improvements. • As a general comment, the latest site plan shows future buildings in Outlot B being located 1 over the City's trunk sewer and water lines. This of course will not be permitted. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be regraded to create the desired development topography. 1 The majority of the site is proposed to drain to a detention pond located near the southwest corner of the Target building. Engineering calculations have been provided which show that the proposed pond will be constructed to NURP standards from a water quality standpoint and provide enough storage capacity to yield a maximum discharge rate of 20 CFS under a 100 -year storm event. The proposed storm sewer detention pond will be located within a drainage and utility easement; therefore, the City of Chanhassen will be responsible for future maintenance and operation of the ponding basin and outlet structure. A graded turf drive access shall be constructed to allow maintenance access to the pond outlet structure. A portion of the northwest corner of Outlot B is proposed to drain via storm sewer to a future storm sewer facility to be constructed as a part of the West 78th Street detachment project. The storm sewer plan for Outlot B has not been revised to reflect the latest site plan. STREET /ACCESS . 1 The entire site proposes four access locations, three off of West 78th Street and a fourth to be a service access from Picha Drive. The easterly two access locations off of West 78th Street are proposed to be full access intersections with the westerly access, serving Outlot 1 I Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 Page 3 1 B, being Right -in /right -out only in accordance with the recommendations from the recently 1 completed traffic study conducted by Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch (SRF). At least one of the two full access intersections from West 78th Street will require signalization which will be constructed as a part of the overall West 78th Street detachment improvement project. Staff I recommends that the westerly access to Lot 1 be considered for the signal location. This location is supported by Mr. Charlie James, the owner of the property along the north side of West 78th Street. Being that the Target site will be a major traffic generator in this vicinity, a cost - sharing formula needs to be developed for the installation of one or more of these traffic signals. This formula is expected to be known prior to final approval stages I for the site plan. In order to provide a more moderate entrance slope at the easterly access to Lot 1 from I West 78th Street, the site plan proposes to lower the elevation of West 78th Street at that location an additional 11 feet from that proposed with the detachment project. The property owner to the north, Mr. Charlie James, has expressed some concerns as to impacts I to the future access of his property at this location (very steep grade) with further lowering of this roadway. Mr. James would not object to the lowering as long as he would be allowed some flexibility in the future siting of his access. Staff believes that this would be workable I as long as Mr. James understands that moving this access location may result in a limitation to a right -in /right -out only condition. I This latest site plan proposal also incorporates a West 78th Street detachment intersection location change with County Road 17 /Powers Boulevard. This proposal would shift the original detachment location approximately 120 feet south . There are apparently a number I of reasons that the applicant desires this adjustment, one of which is claimed to be poor soils for building pads, however, this has yet to be substantiated. This change may have some advantageous for the future extension of West 78th Street west of County Road 17; I however, extensive soil corrections would still be needed for road preparation and other improvements may be needed on County Road 17 at Trunk Highway 5. The developer has indicated that they would be willing to perform necessary roadway soil corrections as a part 1 of their grading operation, however, a formal traffic study needs to be conducted for which the results and proposed change would need to be reviewed and approved by the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Carver County. Preliminary indications are 1 that, as a minimum, side -by -side or double left turn lanes would need to be constructed on southbound County Road 17 at Trunk Highway 5 with corresponding adjustments to the I signal system. It should also be noted that Mr. Charlie James, owner of the property through which the detachment roadway bisects, has expressed his disapproval of this realignment change. Mr. James has spent a great deal of money to correct and prepare the I roadway subgrade for the previously established alignment. Staff is also concerned that enough time be allowed to conduct the necessary investigation in order to address all of the impacts that would be involved with making such an alignment change. 1 1 Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 Page 4 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1. Plat easements needed: 1 A. 20 -foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of proposed watermain. 1 B. 20 -foot wide utility easement over existing 18 -inch watermain through Outlot 1 B. C. 30 -foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer through Lot 1. 1 D. 30 -foot wide utility easement over existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot B. 1 2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost - sharing formula has yet to be determined). 5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnDOT and Carver County and the applicant would be responsible for performing all necessary soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. 6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B. 1 INTERIM USE GRADING PERMIT 1 The applicant seeks an interim use grading permit to allow site grading to begin on the project this fall. A grading plan has been submitted as a part of the overall development 1 plans; however, it does not indicate whether there will be any phasing or staging of the grading process. If the entire site is to be rough graded this fall without the installation of 1 1 Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner September 9, 1992 i Page 5 • the proposed storm sewer system, interim detention ponds and /or drainage systems will I need to be incorporate as a part of the plans prior to approval. Approximately 100,000 yards of excavation /embankment will be involved as a part of the overall grading operation. I The applicant has indicated that erosion and sediment control devices shall be established and topsoil stripped as a part of the initial operation; however, topsoil and poor soil stockpiling locations have not been indicated on the grading plan submittal. It is estimated I that approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material will need to be imported onto the site. The applicant has indicated that the haul route will make use of Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17 to avoid hauling through the downtown area. Construction trucks and I vehicles shall access site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining haul routes clean of dirt, mud, etc. I Working hours will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. The applicant estimates approximately 6 weeks will be needed to complete the rough grading operation. An administrative fee and letter of credit will be 1 required prior to issuing a notice to proceed on the rough grading operation. 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR GRADING APPROVAL 1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and /or I drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer systems will not be constructed until next spring. I 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles. 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway I 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. I 4. Working hours for h g u the grading operation will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I Monday through Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit and administrative fee and letter of credit prior to I commencement of grading operations. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as 1 Watershed District. 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. 1 1 Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner 1 September 9, 1992 Page 6 I ktm i c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 E (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 4 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator 1 DATE: August 12, 1992 SUBJ: Land Development Proposal, Preliminary Site Plan Review - Target The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned proposal on August 11, 1992. A copy of the staff report presented that evening is attached. Mr. John Dietrich of RLK Associates, Ltd. was present at the meeting representing Ryan Construction Company, the applicant. Mr. Dietrich did respond to questions of the commission. Acting as the Park and Recreation Commission, there was consensus among the members in accepting full park and trail fees as a part of this development in lieu of any land dedication or trail construction. 1 This is assuming that the Planning Commission will be requiring the installation of sidewalks along West 78th Street. However, a majority of the members acting outside of the parameters of the commission wished to voice their disapproval of this proposal. Upon conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Andrews moved to recommend the City ty Council require the applicant to pay full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the per acre rate then in force for commercial/ ndustrial properties. At present, these fees are $2,500 per acre and $833 per acre, respectively and that the applicant is held to the highest standards of a PUD development to ensure a high quality development in the downtown business district. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Koubsky. Commissioners Andrews, Pemrick, Erickson, Schroers, and Koubsky voted in favor. Commissioner Lash was opposed. The motion was approved. 1 1 � 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER K ( (), CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �... ` CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (6121 448.1213 ■ 1}. `a COUNTY OF CALNEQ August 4, 1992 1 To: Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Planning Dire or From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer Subject: Preliminary Site Plan Chanhassen Target Development Comments regarding the preliminary site plan for the Chanhassen Target Development dated July 20, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated July 22, 1992, are: 1. The county highway department supports the proposed concept of site access being limited to West 78th Street. 2. Discussion with the city about the potential redesign of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 to safely and adequately accommodate traffic in the area of the West 78th Street intersection is requested. A detailed analysis of projected traffic volumes and movements along this ' segment of CSAH 17 will be required by the county highway department as part of the CSAH 17 project review process. In particular, appropriate traffic control at the West 78th Street and the Oak Ponds development intersections must be studied in detail. Traffic signals at one or both of these intersections may be warranted. Necessary project revisions and additions may require area developers and /or the city to invest additional dollars in the CSAH 17 project. 1 3. It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right -of -way. Any such installations are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 1 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 1 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right - of -way (Including trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way' in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. tt is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary site plan for the proposed development. RECEIVED Affinnatn ' Arum /Fyud Opportunity Employer A U G 6 1992 Printed on Recled Paper tT C v nc CNANHA'.=SFN ■, ■ ■ CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT 1 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ■ Preliminar y and Final P.U.D. Narrative ■ Final Site Plan Approval Target Site i Submitted: August 24, 1992 Revised: September 8, 1992 • Resubmitted to the City of Chanhassen: September 9, 1992 1 ■ PREPARED FOR: I - oym CONSTRUCTION CO' ° �'� ie � ■ Builders OF MINNESOTA, INC MPANY . ■ Developers ■ ■ I PREPARED BY: RIK 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. 55343 ASSOCIATES LTD. (612) 933 -0972 fax: (612) 933 -1153 ■ ■ 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. PRELI.MINARY AND FINAL PUD NARRATIVE AND CHANHASSEN TARGET FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT Revised September 8, 1992 1 INTRODUCTION Located in the east central portion of the City of Chanhassen, on the western edge of the Central Business District lies three parcels identified as Burdick Park Addition Block 3 Lots 1 & 2, Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Block 2 of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition. These three parcels in addition to the vacated West 78th Street right of way form a 22.03 acre parcel of property being proposed for a PUD development. Ryan Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the developer, is proposing to develop the property into what shall be referred to as the Chanhassen Target development. Ryan Construction is proposing this PUD in cooperation with the City of Chanhassen with the intent of developing a 116,822 square foot Target store, and a retail /commercial development on the parcel identified as Out Lot B. The eastern two lots identified as Burdick Park Addition Block 3 shall be included in the PUD for development guidelines; however these two lots shall be developed by others. The PUD boundary and site plan for the Target development is identified on Sheet 1 of 7. This is the second step in the implementation of the Chanhassen Target development. The conceptual narrative and concept plans were submitted on July 21 and revised on August 6 for City review. This document represents the revised narrative and plan sheets which were originally submitted on August 24, 1992. Included in this September 8, 1992 submittal is a narrative that accompanies the seven site plan sheets, the two architectural plan sheets identifying elevations, materials, and floor plan and one plan sheet identifying cross sections and elevations from West 78th Street. The developer, via this submittal package, is applying for the Preliminary and Final PUD and final site plan approval for the Target site. It is the expectation of the developer that the following schedule will be adhered to. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD AND FINAL SITE PLAN FOR TARGET SITE 1 Submit August 24, 1992 Final plan package with narrative, developmental guidelines including the Burdick property to the east of Target in PUD district Resubmit Narrative and Plan Sheet Package September 9, 1992 Planning Commission September 16, 1992 City Council September 28, 1992 It is the expectation of the Developer to have a final decision on this site prior to October 1, 1992. The developer is committed to working with City staff on this schedule with the anticipated approval of the entire Target site plan which would allow the grading and building permit process to proceed subsequent to the September 28th City Council meeting. This schedule anticipates a decision is reached at the September 16, 1992 Planning Commission and the September 28, 1992 City Council meeting. 1 The staff report dated August 12, 1992 as prepared for the August 19 Planning Commission meeting and September 14 City Council meeting has described in great detail the contents of the conceptual submittal. The applicant concurs with staff's recommendations with only minor exceptions. 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 1 1 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. ' Target Stores has presented a building facade and exterior treatment proposal, unlike any other store in the Minneapolis area. The design has been tailored to the City of Chanhassen. The entry canopy has been designed to ' resemble the pitched roof line existing throughout the downtown area. In addition, the color scheme and accent lines are new for a store of this size. Target has further proposed the entry canopy be incorporated into the north facade which fronts West 78th Street. The added architectural detail recessed floor elevation, landscaping along West 78th Street and landscape islands will enable the appearance of Target from West 78th Street to be integrated with the ' Central Business District of Chanhassen. PROJECT GOALS The primary goal of the Developer is to develop 15.48 acres of the 22.03 acre site into a Target store on Lot 1 Block 1 (10.29 acres) and individual retail parcels on Outlot B (5.19 acres). The remainder of the 22.03 acre site consists of proposed additional right of way for West 78th Street (1.42 acres), Outlot A (1.54 acres), which shall ' remain in the possession of the City for tree preservation purposes, Outlot C (1.41 acres), the remaining area of West Village Heights Second Addition north of the new West 78th Street alignment, and the two Burdick lots to the east of Target. There are several objectives that support the primary goal. 1. To integrate the Burdick Park 2nd Addition and Lot 1, Block 2 of West Village Heights Second Addition into a Planned Unit development with compatible site organization, vehicular access, pedestrian systems. utility systems, preservation of trees and architecture consistent with the City of Chanhassen development standards. 2. Provide as a catalyst for the City to authorize the final designs and reconstruct West 78th Street per the Year 2000 Land Use Plan and new alignment and grades as shown on the attached plan sheets dated September 3, 1992. The new alignment of West 78th Street as shown on the September 3, 1992 plan submittal provides for an improved alignment at a reduced cost to the City of Chanhassen. The developer is prepared to work with staff, Carver County, MnDOT and adjacent property owners as necessary to bring this roadway alignment to construction and completion by September 1993. The alignment of West 78th Street should not impact the final approval for the ' Site Plan for Target. 3. Provide two full turning movements with access from West 78th Street into the Target/Outlot B parcels which would also serve the James site to the north. A third access directly into Outlot B will be a right in right out only with a raised center on West 78th Street. The grade of West 78th Street at the main entrance of Target has been designed to be lowered approximately 2 -3 feet over the present day grade and will be signalized. This drop in ' elevation decreases the grade originally proposed for West 78th Street by BRW approximately 2 feet. RLK has reviewed the impact to the James property to the north and based upon a preliminary review the lower elevation of West 78th Street at the Target entrance would not place an undo burden on this site and future development. Additional design and evaluation of grades and a site plan may be necessary. It is our understanding that Mr. ' James has retained an engineer who will study further the elevation, grades, and access impact to his site. The proposed grade is viewed as a compromise between the two commercial sites as a balance between the anticipated floor elevation of each proposed building. ' 4. To create a public utility system, ponding area and combination of a public and private roadway system in conjunction with the site development. 5. Protect the majority of existing hardwood trees at the southeast corner of the lot in accordance with discussions and objectives of the City staff, by allowing Outlot A to remain in the City's possession. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 2 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 6. Develop a quality commercial /retail area compatible with the west CBD sub -area study prepared in April 1992 and , the City's Year 2000 plan and code standards. The commercial site described and shown on the site plan is guided for General Business by the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is also zoned for General Business. In order to create a PUD for this site, the developer has followed the City PUD zoning approval process. The developer wishes to enhance the flexibility of development of the sites within the 15.48 acre tract of land through the relaxation of the BG zoning district standards. In return, the developer's intent is to exchange improved quality and additional landscape materials for the finished development project. The PUD will encourage the items listed in Article VIII, Division I of Section 20 -501. Later, in the details that are contained in this narrative document and attached plan sheets, the methods by which the City's expectations will be met are demonstrated. PRELL\'IPiARY AND FINAL PUD AND FINAL TARGET SITE PLAN ' SUBNIITTAL PACKAGE EXPLANATION Discussion in this section of the narrative introduction briefly explains the contents of the submittal material. This data was transmitted to the City, with the appropriate Preliminary and Final PUD Final Site Plan approval for Target, Rezoning, Site Plan Review and Sign Package Fee. The items listed below are either included in this Narrative Booklet (N) or they are included with the plan sheets (P). On September 9, 1992 a revised narrative and plan sheets were submitted to the City of Chanhassen which identify a revised West 78th Street alignment, improved architectural enhancement on West 78th Street, additional plant materials in the parking lots and a single concept site plan for Outlot B. The developer and Target will provide colored drawings and exhibits at the subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meeting to fully describe the proposed improvements. 1. Completed application for Development Review (N) 2. Written consent of all property owners within the PUD (N) ' 3. Project narrative booklet explaining the project in detailed fashion using verbiage, sketches, charts, and an 1 appendices (N). 4. Set of 10 plan sheets that describe the entire development and specifically the Target Site the components of the project with appropriate detail (P). Sheet 1 - Site Plan; Final Site Plan for Target and conceptual arrangement in Outlot B, lots, roadway and access; Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions; Sheet 3 - Utilities; Sheet 4 - Grading, drainage and erosion control; Sheet 5 - Landscape; Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat; Sheet 7 - Tree Survey; Sheet Al - Floor Plan for Target; Sheet A2 - Elevations of Target; Sheet A3 - Preliminary elevations of West 78th Street and cross sections to building. 5. List of property owners within 500 feet of the PUD boundary (N) site. 6. Topography map and legal description of property proposed for PUD zoning and development (P). , 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 3 1 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. I BACKGROUND OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM PARTICIPANTS CHANHASSEN TARGET DEVELOPMENT Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. will be the Developer of the Chanhassen Target site and Outlot B I retail sites. Under the direction of Bill McHale and Bob Goodpaster, the project will be the first commercial retail development that Ryan has developed in Chanhassen. Target Stores, Inc. will be the owner of the Target store and property. Ryan has considerable experience in developing Target stores and their associated developments such as I the Rockford Road Plaza in Plymouth and the Cliff Lake Centre development in Eagan. In addition, Ryan has developed a number of Industrial and Office Corporate Parks including the Chanhassen Business Center proposed for Audubon Road. Their commitment to the business client and the City to provide a quality retail and business environment helps to assure that the Chanhassen Target development project will be a successful development 1 venture. Architecture for the site development within the Target proposal will be performed by the architects on the Ryan Construction Company staff in association with Target architectural staff. Margaret Fleck of Target and Greg 1 Madsen of Ryan will be in charge of the architectural design and coordination with the other design team members. ' Site planning, surveying, engineering and landscape architecture services will be provided by RLK Associates, Ltd. Dick Koppy will serve to facilitate the project's involvement between the City and the developer on all items related to site planning and infrastructure development. RLK Associates has served Ryan Construction Company for over 5 1 years on many of their retail, industrial and office park development projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 1 PROJECT DETAILS I Planned Unit Developments (PUD) offer enhanced flexibility for the developer to achieve a more creative use of the land while modifying the normal zoning district standard. In exchange, the City is provided a development plan which results in a significantly higher quality development and a more sensitive proposal than in the more standard zoning district development proposal. The opportunity for the City to address access, architectural details and site I planning coordination is a distinct advantage for this site. This section of the Narrative discusses the strategies of the development plan for the Target Development and Outlot B related to criteria the City has indicated an interest in reviewing. 1 Through the variety of land use, efficiencies of the utility, roadway and pedestrian systems the proposed PUD can maximize the development potential of the subject parcel while remaining sensitive to the sites unique natural features. Powers Boulevard and State Highway 5 serve as a focus gateway location for the City of Chanhassen. It is 1 the intent of this development to coordinate a location for the gateway feature with the City. The proposed site plan identified on plan sheet one of seven identifies the suggested layout of the Target site and I parking areas. Several key issues identified on the plan sheet submittal are proposed in order to meet the City's objective of a PUD zoning district. 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 4 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. ' 1. Construct West 78th Street according to the Year 2000 plan, the alignment as shown on the attached September , 3, 1992 plans and 2/19/92 SRF feasibility Study to enable the Target site to be developed concurrently with an organized internal roadway system and coordinated access plan from West 78th Street. 2. Two full movement access intersections are proposed from West 78th Street, one of which would directly service Target, one would be a shared access, for Target and Outlot B. A third access would serve Outlot B and is proposed to be a right in and right out only. The two full access locations are proposed to service the James property to the north of West 78th Street. Signalized intersections will be according to the City's Traffic Management Plan, the eastern most access to the Target site will be signalized. 3. Target service area is to be accessed from Picha/Monterey Drive to minimize the impact on the existing woodland at the southeast corner of the site while providing screening of the loading /service facilities from Hwy. 5. 4. The stormwater ponding area has been sized to accommodate the Target site and portions of Outlot B and the Burdick parcels to the east. The ponding area is proposed to be a public facility with access provided to allow maintenance of the stormwater facility. Calculations for area and storage capacity have been submitted to the City Engineering Department for review. ' 5. Portions of the watermain, storm and sanitary sewer are proposed to be public utilities and constructed to the City of Chanhassen standards. 6. There shall be a coordinated effort between the site development and West 78th Street construction to provide pedestrian access and walkways along Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street. It is proposed the sidewalk on West 78th Street be constructed with the reconstruction of West 78th Street and be assessed back to the property owners in equitable percentages. Sidewalks into Outlot B and the Target site shall be provided by the respective developers. Target will construct the retaining wall, with railing and the pedestrian plaza feature at the northeast corner of the site, up to the public walkway. 7. The north facade of Target facing West 78th Street has been recessed to reduce the scale of the facade. There is a combination of a slope and retaining wall up to six feet above the parking area, which will screen the parking lot from West 78th Street. The view from West 78th Street will be through a double row of trees which will soften and screen the facade. Elevations, cross sections and perspectives of the site will be provided at the public hearings. 8. Develop the site and incorporate the design objectives featured in the April 1992 West CBD sub -area study of signage, access, preservation, gateway and landscape buffer areas. 9. The landscape buffer along West 78th Street, ranges from 20 to 52 feet from the West 78th Street right -of -way. ' Existing landscape areas in downtown Chanhassen are 10 feet in width with minimal screening. This landscape and bermed area, in combination with the boulevard trees in the West 78th Street right -of -way, will screen the buildings and parking lots from direct view, enabling the Target development to be compatible with City design standards. 10. The Architectural detailing of the west and north facade of Target have been specially designed to accommodate concerns of City staff and appointed officials. No other Target has the amount of facade treatment and landscaping in the setback areas and in the parking lot as this site demonstrates for the City of Chanhassen. NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 5 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. The following items for discussion and explanation have been taken from Article VIII Planned Unit Developments section 20 -501 through 20 -504. 1 1. Allowable Uses The proposed Target Retail store and the schematic Outlot B development is consistent with the Year 2000 comprehensive land use plan which identifies this site to be used for commercial purposes. The current zoning of BG - a general business category is not equipped to coordinate a large, integrated site development which is being proposed. 1 Specific uses and performance standards for this commercial site development are addressed later in the narrative and on the plan sheets. ' 2. Preservation of desirable site characteristics, buffer areas, and protection of sensitive environmental features including mature trees, ponding areas and scenic views. The site is a combination of sloping land, containing open space, ponding areas, shrub massing and a significant woodland on the southeast corner. The open space areas south of the existing West 78th Street is still in an agricultural state. Plan Sheet 2 - (existing conditions) identifies the existing characteristics of the property. The existing utilities are shown on the map and the anticipated drainage patterns will be compatible to the SRF Feasibility Study for West 78th Street. The existing trees on the southeast corner of the site have been inventoried and surveyed. The trees over six inches in caliper diameter have been recorded with respect to their size, species and physical condition. Generally, there are three significant tree groupings: ' A. Boxelder with a few oak and elm B. Basswood with boxelder and a few oak, elm and ash C. Oak with boxelder and a few elm and ash. The significant clusters (B and C) with the dominate oak trees and other quality hardwoods have been designated to be preserved in most of their entirety. The trees designated for removal on the average are the boxelder and ' elm clusters and individual hardwoods which have suffered disease or storm damage. Refer to plan sheet seven of seven for a print of the tree survey. The replacement landscape quantities identified in the plant schedule on the landscape plan more than replace the quality hardwoods lost to the site improvement. 1 The tree preservation enhancement plan includes thinning and removing all trees below 6" in caliper, removal of all diseased trees and all storm damaged trees in danger of falling over, in Outlot A. The plan was conceived in recognition of discussions with the City staff and the developer (specifically note the May 15, 1992 and the May ' 20, 1992 letters between Todd Gerhardt, City staff, Don Ashworth, City Manager, and Bill McHale, Ryan). In addition to the discussions and meetings held between July 20th and September 1st. The City shall maintain control of the property and will dictate if and how Outlot A will be thinned out. The Develop requests an ' opportunity to work with the City to improve the aesthetics of Outlot A, while maintaining the screening aspects. 3. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the coordination of West 78th improvements, access to the site and coordination of the utility system. ' West 78th Street has gone through the feasibility phase and the cost of the upgrading is known. The new alignment of West 78th Street as shown on the September 3, 1992 plan submittal provides for an improved NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 6 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 alignment at a reduced cost to the City of Chanhassen. The developer is prepared to work with staff, Carver County, MnDOT and adjacent property owners as necessary to bring this roadway alignment to construction and completion by September 1993. The alignment of West 78th Street should not impact the final approval for the Site Plan for Target. The ability to refine the proposed grades of W. 78th Street at the entrance to the Target store will make for a higher quality development. The in place sanitary and water mains on West 78th will adequately service Outlot B and the Target Store. Access to Outlot B and the Target site will be constructed with two full turning movement intersections along West 78th Street and one right in and right out (see site plan). The right of way on West 78th Street has been shown at 50 feet from center line for the entire length of this development. 50 feet allows for the necessary 2 -thru traffic lanes, required turning lanes and, in some areas, sidewalks and landscape boulevard, enabling this site to exceed the Chanhassen CBD landscape screening and plant material requirements. Area has been set aside adjacent to Powers Boulevard for the City to create the Gateway entry monument. Access between the Target site and the Burdick property to the east has been requested and is shown on the plans; however, due to the need for a retaining wall on the south side of West 78th Street on the Target site there is a 5'- 6' elevation difference at the Burdick property line. Further site adjustments to the grades between the two properties will be necessary. The developer is currently working with Mr. Burdick to coordinate the site development between these two parcels. 4. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding community standards. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. The layout of the 10.29 acre Target site and Outlot B totalling 5.19 acres shall be committed to architectural 1 standards which will be established by the Target Store and compatible with the City requirements. The site plan concentrates the ponding area into one location south of the parking lot and west of the mature trees in Outlot A. The development plan for Target indicates a 76.3% impervious hard surface coverage. The landscape plan identifies a higher percentage of required plant stock to be installed as compensation on the slightly higher impervious ratio of 76.3%. The concept site plan for Outlot B identifies an impervious ratio of 50.9%. The entire development is at 67.8% impervious density if the Target parcel and Outlot B are combined in the impervious density calculation. It should be noted, Outlot A has not been included in any of above calculations and would greatly reduce the impervious ratio if included. The Target store is the only site of the development being proposed for the final site plan review at this time and is identified on the attached plan sheets. Outlot B is identified on plan sheet 1 of 7 and identifies the conceptual layout of individual lots, building massing, access from West 78th Street and internal roadway alignment. Prior to any development of Outlot A a formal review and submittal process by the City separate from the Target submission will be necessary. Individual site plans will be submitted to Ryan Construction Company, the property agent, for approval relative to architecture, building materials, and site improvements. The basis of their approval shall adhere to the general guidelines briefly mentioned above and more explicitly contained in the Planned Unit Development, Developer's agreement for the Chanhassen Target Development. A. Building Materials and Design Standards 1 1. All materials and colors shall be approved by the property agent prior to commencement of property improvements. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 7 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. ' 3. Stone shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete masonry details must be approved by Ryan prior to construction or alteration and shall be finished ' in stone, textured or coated (smooth surface or rock face). 5. Metal siding will not be approved except as a support material to one of the above materials. 1 6. No ancillary structures that are considered to be part of the building structure can be constructed without prior approval of Ryan Construction Company. ' 7. Sloping roof lines constructed of metal or asphaltic shingles which will adequately conceal any rooftop mechanical equipment. ' A -8 Target Store Building Material for Final Site Plan Approval Target Store Chanhassen Special Building Elements ' • The gateway enhance element will be accented with a bronze metal standing seam hipped roof at a height of 28' -8" above grade. The entry detailing will be incorporated on to the West 78th Street facade. ' • 8" x 16" masonry units with a rockface finish to vary up to 8' high at main portions of the building; at pilasters 3'4" these will be coated with a dark tan sealant. • 8" x 8" scored masonry units with rockface above 8' level with 8" x 16" block up to 20' height; this will be coated with a light tan sealant. • Parapet cap to be 8" x 16" masonry units corbelled in 1" out 2" to give a strong cap to the top of the building. • Pilaster elements will be 10' in height to break up long lengths of elevation into a more human scale. • There will be 3 -8" bands of color blue at 8' height, green at 10' height, red at 20' height around all side of the building. ' B. Site Landscaping and Screening Standards 1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and /or lawn materials. 2. Approved screening techniques shall be used to block sight lines from adjacent properties and roadways of service area. ' 3. The master landscape plan for the PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site development. 4. Landscaping as exceeding City codes and to be harmonious with existing streetscape features has been proposed on the landscape plan. The landscape buffer yard adjacent to West 78th Street is 20' to 50' in width which greatly exceeds typical zoning standards. 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 8 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 5. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weedfree condition in all areas where grading operations have I occurred up until the time of development. 6. Keystone retaining wall, with a horizontal steel pipe pailing to be located at the northeast corner of the Target I site. A pedestrian plaza complete with benches and possibly incorporating a bus shelter could be integrated at this location. C. Open Space, Trails, Park Dedication 1 1. Outlot A for tree protection shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen. The additional 10 feet of 1 right -of -way along West 78th totaling 0.27 acres shall be deducted from the park dedication fees. Construction of the road, pond and suitable grading will be completed by the developer. The proposed park dedication fee is $2,500.00 /acre and the trail fee shall be $833.00 /acre. The total amount due on a per acreage basis is $3,333.00. The total acreage to be assessed for the Target proposal is 15.48 acres (10.29 I acres, Lot 1, Block 1 and 5.19 acres, Outlot B). The amount due the City shall be paid at the same time permits are being purchased. D. Signage 1 1. Identification Signs: Identification signs will be building mounted in conformance with the City's sign ordinance and consistent with the Target standard. Each property shall be allowed one free mounted pylon I sign located near the driveway into the private site. 2. Pylon Signs: Two pylon signs are contemplated as part of this development; one identifying Target, to be I located along Highway 5 and one identifying the retail area ( Outlot B). The location of the pylon sign for the retail area in Outlot B shall be determined as part of the site plan approval for Outlot B. 3. Monument Signs: The retail businesses within Outlot B and the Target Store will have one monument sign, I each. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the 1 development's entrance monument, the signage monument adjacent to Highway 5 and used throughout. E. Lighting 1 1. A decorative, shoebox fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole will be used throughout the development area for roadway and parking lot lighting. I 2. The same lighting equipment that is mounted in the public street right of way shall be used in the new public roadway areas. 3. Lights will be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as dictated by yearly conditions. This type of lighting is as energy efficient as possible. F. The retention pond will be constructed to NURP standards and be constructed to have access to the structures. 1 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 9 • II 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 * * * * * Agreement with details of the Preliminary and Final PUD Concept plan for the Chanhassen Target Development and I for final site plan approval of the Target Site is being sought on the resubmission dated September 9, 1992. PLAN SHEET DEFINITION The verbiage in the following section of the Narrative briefly describes the contents of the plan sheets that are part of the proposed Chanhassen Target PUD. I Master Site Plan: The site plan outlines the proposal of the developer with the PUD boundary as requested by the City, a realignment of West 78th Street, a final site plan for the Target parcel and a conceptual layout for Outlot B. I Outlot A shall remain property of the City for tree preservation purposes. A walkway to Target and along West 78th Street (to be constructed with West 78th Street) will integrate this site with the CBD. Area for a gateway feature will be preserved at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. 1 The final Target site plan identifies the parking lot layout, walkway areas, service access, setbacks and the PUD legal description. I Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions: The project boundaries are identified and existing conditions of the site are shown through the use of a two foot topographical survey. Topographic information was provided by the City and MnDOT and verified in the field. In addition, the adjoining properties, roadways and significant features are shown. A tree survey was completed on July 18 to identify and quantify species, caliper inch and location. The trees found on site 1 generally are within three basic groups (see Sheet 7) for a tree survey. Sheet 3 - Utility Plan: This plan identifies the location of the proposed water main, sanitary and storm sewer for the I Target site. In addition, the realignment of West 78th Street has been shown. The development of the utility plan for Outlot B shall be prepared upon the site plan approval. The utilities proposed for public ownership have been identified on the preliminary plat with easements covering their location. I Water Main: Has been sized to effectively provide domestic and fire protection to each parcel. Looping of the system will be completed per City requirements. 1 Sanitary Sewer: The site is within the MWCC service area and service is available along existing West 78th Street. Inverts of the sanitary are deep enough to allow the road access to be lowered from West 78th Street 1 to the Target site. Storm Sewer: Pre - development drainage patterns will be maintained, with the ponding area adjacent to the Highway I 5 embankment. All disturbed areas will be resurfaced with pavement, sod, landscape materials or seeded to minimize erosion both during construction and after. The ponding areas will be constructed per City of Chanhassen requirements and according to the N.U.R.P. Design Guidelines. 1 Sheet 4 - Grading Drainage and Erosion Control: The■grading plan identifies proposed contours, ponding areas and suggest new roadway contours for West 78th Street. It is imperative the Ryan Team and the City work together to construct West 78th and the Target proposal in concert. Due to the service access for Target designed to come off 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 10 1 1 RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 of Picha, the floor elevation of Target has minimal ability to be adjusted. The contours on West 78th Street will have I to be adhered to in order for the entry grades for the Target site plan to function properly. All contours shown are 2' contours. Sheet 5 - Landscape Plan, Exterior Lighting: The landscape plan identifies the location and placement of all new plant material, ground cover, and surface treatment. In addition, the area identifying protection of oak trees and other significant species is identified in Outlot A. All plant material will be installed per the planting details and I notes and will conform to the City standards and approved species. The plant material for the Target site, which is being submitted for final site plan approval identifies caliper size, species and totals of plant material proposed. This landscape plan will establish the design standard for the remainder of Outlot B. The landscape plan has been designed to exceed the value of plant material as stated in City Code Section 20 -1179, Landscape Standards. The projected value for the target development is 3.5 million dollars, which would equate to an approximate value of $37,500.00 in tree and plant material costs exclusive of sodding, mulch and irrigation. The base quantity of plant material as shown on the plant schedule corresponds to a budget estimated at 37,000.00. The enhanced quantity and value of the landscape plan is being offered as compensation for the site's impervious density ratio being at 76.3 percent. The developer is proposing to install the base and enhanced landscape quantities as shown on the planting schedule. 1 Sheet 6 - Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat is a combination of two platted parcels and the vacated western extension of West 78th Street. The Burdick property Block 3 Lot 1 and 2 is already a platted parcel and will not be ' re- planed, it will only be included in the PUD zoning district. The proposed plat will be named Chanhassen Retail Addition with a the Target site and two outlots proposed. Outlot A shall remain the property of the City of Chanhassen which shall control the preservation of trees existing in this outlot. Outlot B shall be developed into I individual lots at a later date, when the market conditions dictate. Prior to each lot in Outlot B being platted, the City of Chanhassen will have an opportunity to review the site plan. Sheet 7 - Tree Inventory: The stand of existing trees have been inventoried with all trees over 6" in caliper inch identified. The plan addresses all trees in size but makes no value of a Boxelder vs. an oak tree or the quality of the tree. It is anticipated 1500 caliper inches of quality hardwoods are being retained. The quantity of quality trees proposed to be removed, excluding boxelder trees and /or diseased or storm damaged trees, is estimated to be 360 1 caliper inches. Sheet A -1 - Floor Plan: Floor plan for Target Store, identifying entry location, service, exit doors, and footprint of a standard store internal layout. I Sheet A -2 Elevation: The elevations for all four sides of the Target Store are illustrated with the materials as identified previously in the narrative. The West 78th Street elevation has included details from the entry canopy, I which will help break this facade into smaller building modules. This added detailing and landscaping buffer will enable the West 78th Street facade to be in harmony with the CBD of Chanhassen. The elevation illustrates the recessed floor elevation along the north (West 78th Street) side, which greatly reduces the scale of this facade, when viewed from West 78th Street. I Sheet A -3 - Cross Section/Elevation: The plan identifies preliminary cross sections and an elevgtional view from West 78th Street. The elevation and cross sections identify the landscape materials and recessed floor elevation as the building would be viewed from West 78th Street. 1 NARRATIVE - CHANHASSEN TARGET CENTER Page 11 1 1 o" T. Minnesota Department of Transportation � ti Metropolitan District RECEIV�' Transportation Building 1 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 SE P 4 1992 rC* Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55 OE Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 ' Reply to 593 - 8753 Telephone No. 1 September 1, 1992 1 Mr. Paul Krauss Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 In Reply refer to: TH 5 1 C.S. 1002 Target TH 5 /Co. Rd. 17 Chanhassen 1 Dear Mr. Krauss: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota ' Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for development with consideration of the following comments: ' • Because TH 5 is currently under construction in this area close coordination should occur between the developer and the project construction engineer. The developer should contact Dick Hoppenrath or Dennis Wildermuth at 341 -7427 with any 1 questions. • Traffic generated by this development will amount to approximately 8,950 trips per 1 day ('Trip Generation Rates," NCITE Transportation Utility Subcommittee, June 5, 1992). Because of this considerable increase traffic a traffic impact analysis should be performed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of this 1 development on the surrounding road system. ' • At the ponding area, water storage volume on the Mn /DOT side of the right -of -way line must be excluded from pond design computations (This is necessary to prevent Mn /DOT from having to mitigate that storage if the roadway is widened.) 1 • The stormline along West 78th Street shows no outlet. If the outlet is to the North along CSAH 17, the drainage pattern proposed is significantly different from the Ce'B MINNESOTA An Equal Opportunity Employer 1 Paul Krauss 1 September 1, 1992 Page Two current pattern and somewhat different from the stormwater management plan and will require a permit from the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. For this permit the applicant must provide stormsewer /pond computations including the effects to the downstream 48" RCP culvert under TH 5, inplace and proposed drainage area maps with computations, the ditch grade to the pond area from the 12" CMP median drain, and the SRF Feasibility Study for West 78th Street as mentioned on page 4 of the Concept PUD Narrative. A Corps of Engineers permit may also be required if there is construction in the existing wetland at the pond site. Please respond to Bonnie Peterson of our Hydralics section at 593 -8505. 1 If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 593 -8753. Sincerely, Tim Henkel Planning Supervisor cc: Ma Anderson, Metropolitan Council Mary n, P Les Weigelt, Hennepin Co. Mike Reiter, Hennepin Co. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 1 11111100r . i 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 is I I MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 'FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -le F I DATE: 09/09/92 SUBJECT: 92 -6 Rezone, 92 -5 PUD, 92 -2 Site Plan Review (Target) ' • Plans reviewed are dated 9/3/92. 11 1. Allowable floor area for Target is dependent on maintaining 60' yards around the entire building. The no build agreement on adjoining properties must be recorded in the chain of title with the reason for the restriction included. No build area on property to the east should be extended to the 'north and south to assure maintenance of 60' yards. 2. Asphalt or concrete sidewalks, turnabouts or fire lanes should be ,extended to all required exits from the building. 3. Building exit width appears to be deficient unless corridors 117 and 141 'are rated. 1 1 1 1 1 1 f. t 0 I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II 1 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: September 10, 1992 SUBJ: Site Plan Review - Target 1 The Chanhassen Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plan for the proposed Target store on West 78th Street. The following list are requirements that shall be met: 1. FF indicates location of "No Parking Fire Lane" signs. P o =icy #06 -1991 enclosed. Note: Additional "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required as situations dictate. 1 2. Policy #04 -1991 "Site Plan" enclosed. 3. Policy #07 -1991 "Preplan Map" enclosed. 4. Painted yellow curb. See Fire Marshal approved site plan. 5. Policy #29 -1992 "Premise I.D." enclosed. 6. 10' (foot) clear space around fire hydrants - City Ordinance. 1 7. Fire department sprinkler connection must be installed near main entrance per Chanhassen Fire Marshal approval. See utility plan page 3 revised 9/3/92. 8. Relocate fire hydrant located N /NE corner. See utility plan, sheet 3, revised 9/3/92. 9. Extend fire lane on south and east side. See site plan, page 1, revised 9/3/92. 1 tO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITYOF ‘.... s'"N..tt.,,, il k 2 e P ..4 . cBANBAssEN ........15..,..,,}4.0.,,.f. 4 ,,-",...7 II �� /'"``::,._> 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA 55317 ;i r (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY II PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible II from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. II Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. g II Other Requirements - General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from background. 1 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size I and location must be approved. . Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement *3 must still be met. 1 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers H deemed necessary. Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit) 1 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1 /4 ". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department II Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12 ". 1 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ". b. Address numbers shaltbe on the main entrance and on all back doors. I 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. I Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992 II A.. 1,c9 Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 II PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 „, CITYOF _,.,e--- I , -041e-,_ - - h� �. - 7--,, s a m s t 1- - --- = 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 : ^ice �, (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY I REOUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18 ". NO 2. Red on white is preferred. I PARKING FIRE 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade I LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. f\ 4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING II FIRE LANE II 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7'0" '75 foot intervals along the .fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided II facing the direction of travel. 7. Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than II 36" from the curb. - 8. A fire lane shall be required in II (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. II ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS II THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. • . 1 Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991 I/ (L1)7 71 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 1 rib T.*, ' �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 CITYOF 4,„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE -PLAN 1 Prior to issuing the C.O., a pre -plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. The following items shall be ' shown on the plan. 1) Size 11" x 17" (maximum) 2) Building footprint and building dimensions 1 3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or deadend 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P.I.V. - Fire Department connection 7) Gas meter (shut -off), NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location ' 9) Fire walls, if applicable 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12) Exterior doors ' 13) Location of fire alarm panel 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable 16) Haz. Mat. storage, if applicable 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls /roof 19) Standpipes 1 1 Chanhassen Fire Departmet t P Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991 Date: 01/16/91 Ge; Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I K C ITYOF ,, 1 ,.__,_ _ ,..._., __,..-4*- '4.,.. ; : ' .. ffry ':'1'. ,,- , ;7 •, • , • CHANHASSEN ,,,,,,i. ___At ,,....., 4ii....i„. Y 690 COULTER DRIVE • • P.O. BOX 147 • • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ,1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY 1 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS All the following required inspections shall be scheduled 24 hours 1 in advance with the Fire Marshal: 1. Witnessing the flushing of underground sprinkler service II line, per NFPA 13- 8 -2.1. 2. .. Hydrostatic test of sprinkler system and 24 hour air test II for dry systems. 3. Testing of all smoke detection, manual pull stations, and fire suppression systems. 4. Installation of fire extinguishers 2A -40BC rated minimum. II Install one by each exit door and as designated by Fire Inspector. 5. Extinguishers shall be provided before final approval. II 6. A final inspection by a Fire Inspector before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all 1 phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are I available. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition 1 during all phases of construction. The use of liciuefied petroleum uas shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of II these requirements is available. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored II by an approved UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. 1 Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention a II Policy #04 -1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: Page 1 of 2 1 IS, I . � « r PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 ' An 81/2" x 11" pylar As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. ' An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. 1 The domestic supply from a •combination domestic and fire protection line shall not exceed one fourth (1/4) the total pipe size at the I line. High -piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High -piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain special- hazard ' commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet. 1 Fire lane sicrnage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (see policy #06- 1991). Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section 3305G, Exception #5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for installation and system type. (see policy #05 -1991) . 1 1 1 Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2 1 .1 N '1! 1 r fi = � - i i • 11 Vi f „ • C�o,�; e , POWERS BLVD. E k° c VE 1 11 it li i g '''') • 1 r F cs 1 c ..A • .. , C Sve m E =B• r t 24 L7o 1 (,�,s,� ( 242 No KERBER BLVD. ntr. m =E 1 r Y i s Mc t. a c►o4) 00 - r i N { - (346) 4127.! t ^ ^ MARKET BLVD. - m gml c (14040. 1, It r t $ . �Z j e• •�i0Y v%/ 1 fi c 2 ° " $z � L � O n w (i44) - Z z z' I t j �► f 151 (14) LAREDO DR. o0) Z 1 ; � 1 -on la II z Fri 1 El z f Q. -a m F m ii 1 -1 . '�� r m ad0l ` r d .. wp b t 5 4 n SN y� j r ' F RONTIER TR. t 1 (1) N . ` CO .V a SV 1 c 0 IS; M1 4_764 Cods) NORTH 1 C i 242 T.H. 101 rz City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 I 11. De et ( 1 ed.) ' 12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two water systems together. ' 13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with any location recommendation by the Fire Marshall. ' 14. Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes and extend storm sewer lines to the detention ponds to minimize erosion along the slopes. 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. 16. Review I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for the first 50' at intersection. 17. If the cul -de -sac islands are permitted, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to provide an acceptable design. 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetlands. ' 19. (Deleted.) 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Departments. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL CENTER. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD. TARGET DEVELOPMENT. ' Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Ryan Construction is proposing a development of approximately 18.78 acres. This proposal has changed. We've already added additional acreage. It's going to the Planning Commission for preliminary and site plan approval on Wednesday so a lot of what I'm talking about is dated information but for the purposes tonight, which is conceptual approval, we'd like to go back and show you what we've gone to the Planning ' Commission with and give you their recommendations and pass those forward back through the process. So the conceptual proposal was 17.78 acres which included a Target store on approximately 10.36 acres and Outiot B. And Outlot B that they came in with was approximately, excuse me. There were three variations in this area right in here. The proposal also includes a possible gateway project in this area in here, which the HRA is looking at. And in addition, outlot here ' which would be the trees that the City will be purchasing. The HRA, excuse me will be purchasing and one of the conditions of approval that we would maintain is that those trees be not disturbed. It'd be approximately an acre and a half. Based on the length, the time of the hour, I'd just briefly go to the summary of the rezoning issues and the reasons why the staff would support the zoning to the PUD, which would be that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for screening of the undesireable views of the loading areas. The preservation of the desireable site characteristics. More specifically the 39 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 ' trees. Improve architectural standards, including the pitched roof, uniform signage and architecture and traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential traffic conflicts. Again, the purpose of the PUD zone is to develop standards for which this proposal when it comes for site plan review will have to be developed under these guidances and in this proposal we'd recommend, as far as permitted uses, I won't go through these in detail, but I'd like to highlight some of the main issues. The permitted uses we've limited to two fast foods. Otherwise there's a mix of retail uses in that zone. Again, Target being the largest user. We've shown how the three different outlots vary. The Planning Commission had specific concerns about how this outlot, and you'll see tonight, they've prepared the revised plan of this. The mismatch of the outlot and how that would reflect into the Target proposal. Street and access. It's bordered on three major collectors. Highway 5, Powers Boulevard, and West 78th. Strgar- Roscoe is who's working on the detachment improvement project. I've reviewed this. We're looking at three access points. One here at Target, another one at the end of the Target parking lot and then this one here into Outlot B. At this time the one going into Outlot B, we're recommending be a right turn in and a right turn out only. There will be no access onto Powers Boulevard so all access would be out to West 78th. As you're aware, we have approved stop lights on West 78th recently and we assume that one will be warranted immediately. Target's looking at this location right here for a stop light in conjunction with the opening of that store. As I had mentioned earlier, as far as landscaping, the tree preservation was the major issue as a part of the Highway 5 and the City's value to those trees. Was a major discussion with this project. They had requested to go in and do some of the trimming but our recommendation is that those trees be owned by the HRA and that no thinning or trimming of those trees be done. I would like at this time go through some of the Planning Commission's concerns. The biggest concern, if I could show you the original proposal for architecture was, because this is on the, so to speak the main street of the downtown area there was a major concern that this oriented towards Powers Boulevard and the view of that long blank wall on West 78th. There is a significant change in topography from West 78th into this and actually the one corner of Target will be recessed. This area right in here will be recessed down. If you're looking across from West 78th, actually the top of the building, you'll see less of the building massing so it screens the parking which we feel is a benefit. But we do have concerns about that and they are here and will show you the revised drawings that we feel has made improvements to the design of the building itself. The other concern is the actual parking lot. The amount of landscaping that was in the parking lot. And ' the Planning Commission had concerns again with the massing of the building and what this looks like for our downtown. That large of a building and that much asphalt. Again, they've come back and what we feel is an improved that by increasing the amount of landscaping islands. In addition, the Planning Commission wanted to see a connection between Target and the Outlot. Whether that goes through the parking here or pedestrian access, and what they submitted to the Planning Commission, they have not included in that plan. They feel like the sidewalk along West 78th Street accomplishes that. There will be a sidewalk along the entire length of West 78th and the Park and Recreation Commission has recommended a trail along Powers Blvd. that will tie into the trail along TH 5. But again, the Planning Commission felt that it made sense to provide pedestrian access in the middle of the parking lot to break that up. Again, the design of Outlot 8, as I mentioned before, was one of the concerns of the Planning Commission and they have made those changes as you'll see tonight. Another 40 , 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 issue then would be just the amount of traffic going into this area and where that's all coming from and Strgar - Roscoe's here and they did spend some time going through that in great detail at the Planning Commission meeting. The majority of that will be coming off of Highway 5 onto Powers. The other issue that is going to be going before the Planning Commission, as you look at this site plan is the road configuration has changed. I won't spend a lot of detail on that but there is some concerns with this. People here tonight that do have concerns about that. It has been claimed by the applicant that there was a number of soil corrections that needed to be made and therefore they felt that it made sense to move the road down. The original realignment for the detachment of West 78th in this area here, they want to move it 120 feet to the south. With the touchdown point in this area. Preliminary it appears that it ' may work out with MnDot and Carver County engineers but we need to get specific details on those approvals. Obviously that would leave a lot remnant right here in Mr. James' piece and he has specific concerns about that and he's here ' tonight to discuss those concerns. But the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the conceptual. I've gone through and outlined specifically the concerns with the conditions that the staff had and modified those to reflect ' the Planning Commission's concerns. So based on that, the Planning Commission recommends approval with those modified conditions. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Kate. At this time, if Target would like to come ' forward and make your presentation. Pill McHale: Good evening. My name is Bill McHale with Ryan Construction. Mayor, Council people. We will try to make this fairly brief. Because of the massive amount of information that was previously disseminated, we'd like to focus mostly on the changes and the new information we've worked out with staff, especially during the last couple weeks. The main points as we see them were the architecture of the store itself, certainly the 78th elevation and how it fit in. Landscaping on the lot and then Outlot 6 and the concerns the Planning Commission had. Part of our response to the outlots was the movement of 78th as well as I think some positive changes to the building. The lot and the 78th elevation. What I'd like to have first is Oick Koppe, President of RLK, the consulting engineer to go through some of the specific site changes as they apply to the lot. Then I also have Margaret Fleck, the architect for Target who will go over the building itself and if you desire, there is a real estate rep from Target also here. And then I'll close up but we'd like to get out some of the information so that we can react to some of the concerns from 2 weeks ago. Dick Koppe: I'm going to talk about a few of the items. I'll move through the items very quickly. They may not be in the order that you have in your mind but ' I'll cover all of the issues that Bill brought up including the landscaping on the site. The first item on this board demonstrates the alignment change that the developer is recommending be looked at by the city. The blue line shows the alignment under the currently platted West 78th Street. Now as you drive the street today, you'll drive along this alignment. The new street would be planned along this blue line. We have looked at the site layout and Outlot B layout and have proposed the new alignment based on several facts that we think 11 are important for the City Council to consider. First of all, with this new alignment we still would have 450 -500 feet of spacing between the new West 78th Street and State Highway 5. We discussed this with your staff and consulting engineers, and I see they're here present tonight and you may wish to ask them ' 41 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 1 later, to cooperate or make comments about my comments, but they've indicated to us that the spacing will work. In fact it may even be a better spacing in terms of a signal at TH 5 and a signal at West 78th Street in terms of II interconnection. One of the big reasons we're recommending that this realignment be done is we feel there's a soils problem in the northern portion of Outlot B. A soils problem that to put buildings in this location would mean II considerably expense to the developer of Outlot B. In our estimation, it would be far more economical to put the roadway alignment through Outlot B and then vacate Outlot C to the developer on the north side of West 78th Street. Thus II allowing him to have the deeper lot which we feel may be of a larger benefit to his property and also having better soils conditions here, eliminating the serious soil problem that we have south of west 78th Street, and probably most importantly, eliminating the acquisition of about 1.5 acres of property for II Outlot 8 by this change. The gentler or more lower degree of curb on West 78th Street under this alignment would make for better traffic movement. However, I think it's important to mention that this alignment shown in blue did meet your II State Aid standards so we are not trying to correct something that was not meeting State Aid standards before. We just feel this would be a better alignment for the high volumes of traffic that will be using West 78th Street. I The outlot or organization of Outlot B under this plan would be better organized because we would be able to locate four buildings on Outlot B and we would have a better organization of Outlot 8 and in our opinion better access from West 78th Street into Outlot B. We've included in our packet some design , alternatives for Outlot B. ..if you'd like, we can leave the Outlot 8 alternative with you. Finally, the soil corrections that would be necessary, I did mention before that one of the big issues, soil issues along the new II alignment of West 78th Street, the soil corrections that would be necessary for the new alignment would be done by the developer during the construction of the Target site. So the City would not have to have any additional expense of soil correction problems as a result of the realignment. And in fact would have less II acquisition by this layout of approximately 1 1/2 acres. This plan, using that new scheme along West 78th Street, demonstrates the landscaping that would be completed or implemented throughout the lot. Outlot 8 would not be landscaped I at this time. It would be done under a separate development agreement but this entire Target outlot or Target lot of about 10.3 acres would be totally landscaped in the area along West 78th Street. I'm going to show the three cuts that we've made, or sections that we've made through the site trying to give you II an idea of how that you can look at the site from West 78th Street. The first section through the site is Section AA and that section would be right at the easterly end of the site near the northeast corner of the Target building. As II you're looking at the site from a section, this is West 78th Street. This would be'the retaining wall along the edge of the parking lot. This is the parking lot and grass area. There'd be grass in here. There would be a rear landscaped II area behind the Target store. Section BB is a little further to the west, just about 50 feet from the entrance of Target. I might add, this entrance to Target is where the traffic signals is projected to be placed. Again we have a slope coming off of West 78th Street. One of the elevation requirements that we are II requesting is that West 78th Street be cut from it's existing elevation that you had planned in the BRW study. We are requesting that that be lowered an additional 2 feet. We already have, as you can see, a fairly significant cut. II Similarly, the additional 2 feet less of elevation will help us blend through the Target site from West 78th Street down to Highway 5. Even with that cut, we're still looking at slopes through the Target parking lot of between 3X and II 42 1 II City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 5%. This is Section BB. Again, coming off of the roadway. The boulevard area with a 5 foot sidewalk, boulevard trees, shrubbery, and the parking lot with ' trees within the parking lot and a Target building. This is Section CC, and this section is further into the parking lot. At a section along West 78th Street at the point of curvature where you start curving up to the north, it indicates the widest point of the boulevard area. You can see the landscaping that will be done. It also indicates how some of those islands within the parking lot would be landscaped with trees and shurbbery, trying to reduce as you're looking through the parking lot, the impact of the vehicular parking 11 situation. The bottom perspective is looking at the Target building basically from the rear of the building back at this point to the front of the building from the side view. Again, along West 78th Street. We have tried to meet with ' staff. Take into account many of their landscaping, building aesthetics, engineering, street alignment situations that have come up over the past few weeks. We think we've worked with staff to the degree where they're satisfied that we met most of these demands, if not all of them. And we feel that we have demonstrated that adequately. Councilman Mason: Can I just see AA please? Dick Koppe: Sure. ' Councilman Mason: Where is that again in relation to? Dick Koppe: AA is at the rear of the Target building. You're looking at the big swath of landscaping that would be back here between the Target building and ' the Burdick property. Councilman Mason: Now is that the current elevation or the elevation you want? ' Dick Koppe: This would be the elevation that we would propose as a part of the reconstruction of West 78th Street. ' Councilman Mason: What's the elevation now? Do you know off hand? Kate Aanenson: They're lowering it a foot and a half. ' Dick Koppe: About a foot and a half. The property from the James property all the way down to TH 5 is pretty much one continuous slope and in order to try to ' minimize the fill and the cut that we have through the property and keep the grade somewhere around 3'c to 4'c in the parking lot, we feel that this elevation along the front of Target would help that situation. ' Bill McHale: A couple things that I'd like to express and then I'll let Margaret Fleck go over the elevations. A couple things with aligning the roadway...is it takes less acreage into account that when you consider the ' existing easements that go through the center or both sides of the existing 78th that you'd be vacated...the sanitary can't be moved very much because of the fall and gravity situation. But when you take the sight lines of the roadway into consideration, the setbacks, the utilities, etc., in order to place building pads on Outlot 8 previously, it became confusing as far as Planning Commission was concerned. By lowering the grade, we enhance the sight lines into the property. We also move the roadway closer to the existing easements 43 r City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 that can't be moved and to be vacated right away. And it looks at that ' 9 point like a, I believe it's in your packet, a fairly simplified for building outlot with a new street coming through it that exists on the property. The buildings can all be built and the economics as well as the aesthetics I think are greatly enhanced. Plus it means that the HRA would have to acquire about an acre and a half less property also. Margaret. 1 Margaret Fleck: Just very quickly I'm just going to show you what we standardly start with when we go out on a job site and think about what we want to do as a Target. This is our bare minimum Target. This is not what you're getting in Chanhassen at all. I guarantee you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. ' Margaret Fleck: Hopefully this will make you appreciate this even more though. To some extent the building footprint will be maintained. It just starts with our merchandising. To begin with, just to emphasize. Our entry area and our front area does have a great deal of variation just standardly. What we've done to really assist and upgrade it even further is to, I'm going to drop the proto type down here so you can just get a real strong comparison. Or standard building. Is we've changed the front entry area and brought in the pitched roofs so it brings back in your reflection of your residential areas here. Tries to bring in some scale. We have also added several colored stripes that we would normally not use on our standard building, feeling that that also brought more scale in. Brought more color. It's the blue, the green and the red that we call somewhat our Greatland colors. There is the curved edges which accent and soften the building a great deal. And then along with that, so that we could start working and playing with the 78th Street side, we added another massing over here that has a similar roof at a lower height and then we added masses along the 78th Street side. One of them reflecting almost a smaller entryway and the metal standing seam roof that again gives you your sloped pitch look. You'll notice on all of the areas that project out further, we have changed the height of the darker tan color of the 8 x 16 masonry so that it really emphasizes it projecting out even further. In fact, the West 78th Street side we've even gone to adding the brown stripe up higher to kind of bring it out again. It is a masonry building with an 8 x 16, what we call a rock face. It's not a smooth face block. It has a texture to it. It is sealed with a coat that gives it the color and we'll go with the darker color and then the lighter color up here is all in 8 x 8 scored masonry unit so that you get a different . scale. And it gives you a great deal more variety to the texture and the surface of the building. Yeah, there's the colors. Councilman Mason: How wide are the bands? The color bands. Margaret Fleck: They're 8 inch bands and they are actually a tile piece that's integrally molded into the block. Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes known as racing stripes. Margaret Fleck: We call it spectraglaze. That's a product name but. It does assist a great deal in breaking up and because it's smooth in comparison to the rock face, it does have an indentation to it that you don't have on the rest of the building. We've added trees up in the front to break up the line here and 44 • .rep1 wpeT lam, 1`174 also to add some green into the area. Brought another tree in over here. The projections that we have on the building will be 2'8" or greater and at this point I'd like to show you a perspective that should give you an indication of how the West 78th Street side as well as the front entry starts working so that you can get a feel for the massing that we're projecting out and the variation along this side. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) 11 here. Chmiel: ...had a little more aesthetics to it than even what you have here. Margaret Fleck: Perhaps very different aesthetics because of the Florida area. ' We do work with a different material down there that would be fairly inappropriate for this cold climate. To some extent we do have elements. I know one of the things that was mentioned on, and I believe you saw Boca Raton? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Margaret Fleck: Yeah. One of the items that I didn't manage to include in this and that was mentioned on that was there was a cornice work. Here rather than doing an attached cornice work, we have done a corbeling to the block that will bring you and project out 2 inches and 2 inches so that you start getting that same, but yet with the masonry units that you don't change materials again and we maintain the integrity of the wall that would be there. Mayor Chmiel: The C2 that you have on here, is indicating metal. Where would that particular... Margaret Fleck: That would not be on this particular building. That is ' normally on our Greatland building which has the two different colored entries. UF're maintaining the red entry on the interior but we're keeping this band along here the same color as the base color. ' Councilman Workman: How does the size of this match up with the Eden Prairie store? Margaret Fleck: The Eden Prairie store was built prior to my getting involved with Target but I would say that width wise, it's approximately the same and depth wise, it's fairly close. Tim, do you know the square footage on the Eden ' Prairie? Yeah, it should be fairly close to that. This one does have a greal deal more variation along the wall surfaces than that Eden Prairie store has. that prototype didn't have the variation. We've moved, that prototype also had, ' or that basic building also has the office area upstairs so we've gotten a great deal more variation moving in and out of the entryway area than you would have seen in Eden Prairie. I believe that's almost straight across. ' Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Mike, do you have any specifics? Councilman Mason: I need a visual. I'm curious about some sort of computer imaging. I don't know if that can be done here or not but I'd like, I understand the view now from West 78th and that's really been helpful but, and 45 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 maybe I'm jumping ahead here but what will it look like from Highway 5? What will it look like from all the other areas? Margaret Fleck: Most of what you're going to see from Highway 5 is this elevation. This elevation which does not reflect all the trees over on that lot , will be pretty well covered by those trees or their branches during the winter. That's a big stand of trees there. You'd only, the area that you're going to really see is maybe along here. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'm talking about coming from Victoria. Coming from the other direction. Coming over the bridge. Mayor Chmiel: Coming from the west and going east. Councilman Mason: Yeah. 1 Kate Aanenson: I specifically asked for, we looked at the elevations at points going up, and Barton - Aschman going up and looking at, plotting this along to look, see what we would actually look at and what we haven't discussed here , tonight is the 3 to 4 foot parapet wall because that was a big concern too. So we went through and we plotted those points. I think we got them every 100 feet and you won't see any rooftop equipment. They have, what you can't see also is, as you mentioned, they have trees in Outlot A. Plus there is additional, with the storm retention pond. One of the advantages of this plan is, they were able to put a 2:1 slope on that pond. In this area here. We were able to get the parking lot pulled up and increase this area down in here too...landscaping along this area will help. But that is a concern and we did look at that specifically and how this would look... Again, I think a lot of this, what happens here will affect that visual and the landscaping that goes with each of those lots. Councilman Mason: Anyone else on the Council interested in seeing what it looks like on a computer or should I be quiet? Councilman Wing: Computer imaging is certainly the in thing. It doesn't seem to be that costly to take a picture of the area and put the store in and start adding and subtracting. It certainly was successful on those monuments. Councilman Mason: Well, it was very successful on those monuments. I just would be really curious to see what it would look like. Councilman Wing: Do you do computer imaging? 1 Margaret Fleck: I would have to look into that. I don't know that this particular prototype or this particular building type has been put into the computer that would be able to do that 3D imaging. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Paul, can I ask you a question? With the relocation of 78th Street, the proposed location. Maybe Charles too. How is this going to effect how our parkway along the north side of Highway 5? Paul Krauss: First keep in mind that we have not taken an active position one way or another shifting it but our concern has always been maintaining a 46 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 continuity through there and we've had Strgar- Roscoe look at that and we believe it doesn't really effect it adversely. You can continue right through there. In fact it helps you scoot around the wetland a little bit more -to move you to the scuth a little bit. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Charles, maybe you can answer the other question I had. The relationship to moving that from point to point. How will this effect our State Aid on that particular road? Charles Folch: Well, basically we would, we aren't proposing to use State Aid dollars to construct the West 78th Street improvement project so therefore. Mayor Chmiel: No, but once they go in and once someone's due for a change 20 years down the road. Charles Folch: That's basically a change in paperwork if you will. Define the alignment. Once it's basically, this change would have to be approved by both Carver County and MnDot from a review standpoint. Once we have, if we did receive those approvals, it's a matter of a paperwork process just to redefine the alignment from a State Aid mapping standpoint. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, how would the stacking be with that 450 to 500 feet? Charles Folch: Well that's, yeah that's the question that I think Strgar took a further look at. How that, not only West 78th Street at County Road 17 but also the segment from CR 17 or the segment of CR 17 from the detachment intersection south to Highway 5. How that would function and such and I think preliminary indications are that, as a minimum at Highway 5, we would need to add an ' additional left turn lane so in a sense you'd have side by side double left turn lanes. Is that correct Denny? From an initial traffic analysis standpoint, so there might be some modifications that would have to be done at the intersection with Highway 5 to get it to perform properly. Another change may be eliminating ' the free right from westbound TH 5 to northbound CR 17 which isn't that big a deal but there's other considerations like that that we would want to take a look at. Councilman Mason: I think that would be a big deal if we had to eliminate that. Personally. • ' Charles Folch: The free right? Councilman Mason: Yeah. Because I use it a lot. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, does anyone have any specific questions? I Councilman Wing: I'd like to ask Paul on grading and drainage. All this money going into these environmental, this parking lot and the number of cars is going to bring into the city and create some horrible things that we wouldn't want to drink or smell. What's going to happen? I understand it's going into a ' retention pond, it's holding. Has our engineering staff or water surface people looked at this parking lot? Is all this drainage and the pollution it creates, going into areas that are going to be, what's the word, treated? Treatable? ' 47 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Paul Krauss: It's all going to be runned through treatment basins that's to the NURP standards. And when taken in total, over the entire PUD, the hard surface coverage is actually relatively low. So when you combine it with the fact that all the water that runs off will be run through treatment basins, I think we can offer a pretty good level of environmental protection. Councilman Wing: The only other comment I would make, as we progress along the way here, at some point I'd like to throw this out and I might as well put you on guard right now. Is that when everything is said and done and we've agreed , on this and the vote's down, at the very last minute I'd like to quote a mentor of mine and say, whatever the landscaping is, double it and vote for it. So I think that the building is basically, they've made some real efforts to meet the city's standards and the building is more attractive. However, it's still a basic warehouse. Windowless. Somewhat square. And in Eagan they have a lot of similar buildings and they're incredibly attractive because they're incredibly landscaped and not to the .point of being excessive. There's just a lot of landscaping. As it matures, you actually give a gift to the city so I think we really want to react to the future and impact the future. When all's said and done, and it's all agreed upon, I think we ought to take a final look at the landscaping and maybe there's room for some more trees and brush and whatever the case is, to put the building into a little more of a, less of an open field setting and into a little more of a wooded setting for the future. I think it would really impact this store as it comes into our city and I think that would be a gift we could give the community. To see that it's landscaped. But what we've got now is good, but I think it's basic. So at some point I would like to request additional landscaping. Unless you bent my arm enough not to. 1 Paul Krauss: It occurred to me, I live in Eagan. I'm familiar with the one in Eagan and this is no Eagan. I mean we're doing it a lot better. Councilman Wing: I'm not talking about Target. I'm just talking about some construction in Eagan. We'll go for a ride. I'll show you want I mean. Paul Krauss: Because this has the Target in Eagan beat hands down. Councilman Wing: Oh, oh I agree. I think you've done a wonderful job on this. I'm only saying that when we're down to the bottom line, I sure would feel comfortable with just a little more green. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe before I proceed with the balance of Council. I know we , have some property owners in and adjacent to this and I'm wondering if there's any concerns or anything you'd like to bring up at this particular time. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. I own the land just to the east of here and in our agreement it does provide for a drive to go between the parking lot and my property. And we did originally want a curb cut but we've pretty well given that up so the driveway there is acceptable. And I did go into moving the building 40 to 60 feet to the south where it was originally and right along for a number of months but I understand and I've talked to Kate about this. She particularly wanted it moved to the north to save some of the oak trees and we had a discussion on this. I discussed it with her and a couple of you people and the situation is like this. I looked at it and I thought perhaps 2, 3, 4 oak trees would be gone and on that basis it would be worth it. , 48 ' City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Moving it 40 feet to the south but I engaged Bill Engelhardt, a professional engineer, because I'm sure he has a much better, more accurate job than me and he reports about a dozen oak trees. 12 oak trees. Some of them are 18 -24 up ' to 36 inches. So we would prefer to have it to the south because it'd hurt our property to the east less. On the other hand, the trade off is, these oak trees ' are though. I'd ask you people not to count too much on oak trees because a 36 oak tree much be 100 years old and just how much life do they have left. We also have a lot of oak wilt in Minnesota. Star and Tribune had an article on it a couple of weeks ago. Something like half the oak trees or whatever. They didn't particularly name Chanhassen. It was a general thing. And farther south, it could be a bit more of a gradual slope to the Target building on the north as you're concerned about the appearance from West 78th Street. As Mr. ' Wing mentioned, the trees, there'd be more room for trees on the north side of the building. In other words, a better appearance from 78th Street. There'd also be more room for the walkway that the Planning Commission wants and I understand the Planning Commission also wants some plantings along 78th Street. So it's rather a trade off. I thought originally about 3 oak trees, I'd come in and really push it. So we'll plant 3 oak trees or whatever or 30 oak trees. In 10 - 20 years it'd be okay. It would be because the...oak trees to move it 40 ' feet. I guess that's about all unless there's some questions. Councilman Workman: Jim, explain to me. You own Lot 2 and Lot 1 there? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes. Councilman Workman: On the north of Pica and to the west of Monterey. What does that accomplish for you by moving the building south? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Well, a better visibility. Better visibility and also a ' better entrance from the Target parking lot. I have a little trouble now with the flow of the traffic there and having this entrance. ' Kate Aanenson: Originally this wasn't included as part of the PUD submittal. When you see it next time, we recommended, that was one of the recommendations that that be included. It makes sense to architecturally tie that in and physically it's connected through that service drive. Councilman Workman: Those two lots? ' Kate Aanenson: Yes. As you mentioned, there won't be an additional curb cut on 78th. There will just be the access to get through and any other curb cuts will be off of Monterey. By pushing it back, he felt that gave him more visibility ' onto West 78th and maybe even off of Powers. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: In other words Tom, instead of being seen 5% in Target's back yard, we'd be SO% in Target's back yard. r Councilman Wing: What's your proposed use of those lots Jim? What do you perceive those maybe being? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Oh, we'd of course open a dry cleaning plant there some day in the near future but there's interest in restaurants. Car wash. I believe 1 49 i 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 those have been the main interest. Oh, also I've approached by a medical group. But we're a bit slow on that. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thanks Jim. Is there anyone else? Charlie James: Charlie James, T.F. James Company. We can't go on meeting this ' way here. I guess first of all I want to say in an unambiguous way, that I support this project and I think it will be a great benefit to downtown Chanhassen. And it also appears that this project is on a fast track schedule and I don't want to slow it down. As a matter of fact I'm hoping that it will prod along some things that need to get done at the west end of West 78th Street. I guess I have to speak tonight about a proposal that came up since the last Planning Commission meeting that you heard here tonight that would basically involve relocating West 78th Street. There were some statements made here that we've got bad soil and that simply isn't the case. The people that did the soil correction out there for me were the same people that were engaged by Ryan and they faxed me this drawing of where the borings were done for them and where they'd been done previously for me. The borings that picked up the bad soil, as you can see here on the pink, that indicates the existing West 78th Street and our property of course is north of there and you can see the arrows here. It says these borings show poor soils. Those borings aren't even on my property. I brought along the original site grading plans and specifications 11 and when we did that detachment out there, we graded that to MnDot specifications. We spent a couple hundred thousand dollars out there and we also have been waiting, as you know I've had a development agreement with the city for a number of years and we've been waiting for the street to get built out there so that we could proceed with our project. At the time that all the fill work was done out there, I hired GME who is also working for Ryan to be on site and they, this is a log of all their daily inspections of every bit of fill that came in and off of that site. And so our site itself, for our proposed building pad is totally corrected. The elevation out there before we started was at 944. We removed organic and bad material below that level and then we filled it to approximately 955 so there's a considerable amount of material that's not only in the building pad area but we drag lined the area that West 78th Street was proposed to be built on to a depth of 16 feet and put in fill material according to MnDot's specifications and 8 inch lift. So I think that what's really happening out here, and in discussing this with Strgar, unfortunately there was a mix up where there was a meeting scheduled a week ago and I think, as Charlie explained to me, I just wasn't on the mailing list for that meeting so I was not notified of the meeting when this original proposal came up. And then when I found out about it, I met with staff and I have to say that everyone's put in a tremendous amount of work on this project. Staff and Don and Todd and everybody and I really appreciate the coordination with them. But in any event, I was unable to make that meeting because I did not receive an invitation. And when I did meet with the City, a couple of things became clear and I guess the most obvious one is that there's no clear engineering reason for this detachment. That primarily what's at issue here preserving sight lines into Target and also trying to make the tax increment in the project balance out and so if there's less land acquisition costs by splitting Charlie James' property and then giving him back a big piece of his land to the north, then apparently that makes the project work better. And as I said to staff, at the meeting a week ago, it kind of reminds me about the story of the chicken and the pig that are standing out by in the pasture one day along the fence on the ' 50 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 county road. And they're looking up at a billboard along the road and here was ' a big billboard by, I think it was the Pork Producer's Council and the Egg Producer's Council. And it said, eat a healthy breakfast and there was a picture of bacon and eggs. And the chicken stands there and he says to the pig, he says isn't it wonderful that we can be part of all that. And the pig says well yeah it is but for you it's just a donation and for me it's a total commitment. That's what this road relocation is kind of done. It's a total commitment for me. I would hope that there'd be some time to resolve these 1 issues and I think there's some issues that need to be resolved with the HRA. I know Don was out of town last week and so I think there may be some issues here that could be resolved by meeting with Don and staff. Now I don't know how to ' accomplish that because I'm a builder and I know how important it is to get your earth work done this time of year so I don't want to obstruct this process but I'd like to see some more work on the west end here. I don't want to see the ' east end of the PUD get pushed along so fast and then the west end kind of gets put on the back burner and Charlie James is hung out to dry for another 4 years. So what I'd like to see is this Target proposal kind of be the engine that pushes forward the resolution of all these issues for me. And so I don't want it to, I don't want to obstruct the thing. I kind of want to be riding on the front of the locomotive and get my problems solved at the same time. I think they've got a good building plan and as I mentioned before, I think it'd be a very nice addition to downtown. Thank you. Don Ashworth: If I may. We started, well first of all, Mr. James and Mr. Burdick are correct from the standpoint that this project has been I think ordered by the City Council two different times and one time it went so far as to even be bonded for. I'mean we literally went out into the market and received monies to build the road. Each of the times for one reason or another, ' the project did not go forward. Each time that it passes a one year period of time, and you've ordered the project but have not constructed it, you have to start the hearing process over. So twice before, really three times now we have 1 reinitiated that hearing process. We did that again in February of this year and held the public hearing to consider ordering the road improvement in mid - March. At that point in time there were some certain questions as to alignment and what not and so the Council's action in March was to table action. Not 1 order the project until some of these issues could be resolved. In the meantime, Target came forward and since that point in time we've been talking about optional concept plans and potential changes to the roadway, etc.. To ' resolve the issues that Mr. James was referring to and to assure that we stay on a schedule and meet State law, it's necessary to pick that hearing process back up again. Staff would recommend that we conclude that hearing process and make some decision. Are we ordering the project or are we not? For our meeting ' on September 28th. Is that correct? But hopefully we'll have an opportunity to meet with Mr. James between now and the 28th and as staff is a part of any other action that the Council might be taking tonight, we'd recommend that you pass a resolution establishing September 28th as the date to conclude the hearing process that was started in March and hopefully again be able to resolve some of the issues that Mr. James has brought out here tonight. So we would present, the re- estimated feasibility study for this project on the 28th as well as to provide updates to the Council as to how we were resolving this issue as to movement of the road. Purchasing all of Mr. James' property, budget problems that quite frankly are there. 1 1 51 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else? Thomas. Councilman Workman: I'm ready to approve the concept, and of course I do want ' to take Mr. James' comments into account. I don't konw if I've got enough information on Mr. Burdick's request. I'd like to look at that a little closer. As I've driven by there, there would appear to be what I'll call a row of lesser trees in front of the oak trees•'that I know that would probably have to come... and so I guess I don't know if that's fair for his two lots or what. But if that's something that can be accommodated. ' Mayor Chmiel: I still I'd like to see the preservation of some of those larger trees. More specifically the ones that are at least 36 inch and of course the infestation that's happening with the oak trees is not only with the red oak but you know, depending upon what the species are of these trees with the white oak, you have three different variations and some of the species that are only being effected are just certain trees of the oak. So I guess I would like to also see exactly what Tom is saying as to take a look see at that. Just to make sure we're not going to dig up something that's been here for a long time and oak trees have been known to last a lot longer than I am. So they'll probably be around another 100 years plus. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: ...I didn't find out which particular type of oak trees... 1 Kate Aanenson: We've got all that information. A tree survey was done. I think the other issue too is, you're not only pushing the building back. When you look at what this, the loading area here, and that takes out a larger significant chunk too and this is the area where the oak trees are down here. Paul Krauss: Right now the loading area benefits from Pica Lane. Or whatever, Pica Street. If you push the building any further south, you wind up having to build a very large cul -de -sac bubble for the trucks to turn around in, and that's what really eats up the trees. Kate Aanenson: Also, those trees are what's providing the screen. The more trees we take down, the less screening we're providing too so there's a trade off there. ' Councilman Workman: Put up a big plastic wall. Mayor Chmiel: It's getting to a late hour. Yes. , Bill McHa1e: I don't want to belabor that point but additionally, as the building, right now the grade coming off the street into the lot is 5% and that's a fairly significant grade in Minnesota. If the street isn't lowered at all and/or it's pushed back in, that grade will increase. I guess there's some questions about how safe or practical that is in Minnesota weather too. ' Mayor Chmiel: Just a little more sand and a little more salt. Councilman Workman: Who pays for that extra lowering of a street? ' Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that would be the property owners. 52 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Councilman Workman: That 2 feet is a... Mayor Chmiel: Would that be termed as a city street? Don Ashworth: The road, to realign 78th Street that's being considered to be reduced. Would that add additional costs? I'm not anticipating it from a city standpoint that it would but. Charles Folch: Relatively speaking, if the only potential cost difference would be if there would be any needed soil corrections within the roadway. If something was worked out where if the alignment is changed, maybe a condition could be put on it that the developer be responsible for any necessary soil ' corrections and the road preparations so therefore you've got pretty much an equal cost for either alignment. Councilman Workman: I'm not talking about realignment as much as I am about depth. Charles Folch: Yeah, the proposed decrease in the roadway by a foot and a half or whatever it is at that main entrance to Target, that's for basically a short period of the roadway. It's not for the entire length of West 78th Street. It's for more of a defined area at that point. The additional costs in grading. ' Probably minimal as compared to the overall project cost. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, with some of the clarifications you've made. 1 Councilman Workman: I would so move the concept. Conceptual design PUD Target. Did I get it all? Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: How does this jive with the thought about realigning West 78th Street? Kate Aanenson: That's not any part of this. Paul Krauss: The way we've taken this to the Planning Commission, and I believe they're going to them on Wednesday, the Target store doesn't change. I mean the Target store issues, the roadway realignment doesn't effect it at all. Mayor Chmiel: No, you're right. Paul Krauss: The concept plan for the outlots that they gave us right now, the ' PUD concept plan is based upon the realigned road. What we've told the Planning Commission is, if ultimately there's a decision to keep the roadway where it is, then that concept for those outlots needs to come back again for review. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Other than what Don had mentioned, with the resolution to come up by September 28th, and the effect of being included in that motion, as a friendly amendment. Is that acceptable? Okay. And the second? 1 i 53 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 Councilman Wing: Sure. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Wing: Just Don, on your stop sign meetings with the community, I've missed those and we had Great Plains, Laredo, Market, Kerber and the other night we brought up Target and Powers. Mayor Chmiel: We were talking about that this evening prior to the Council I meeting. At the informational meeting. Ursula was there as well as Charles and some of the other people. Kevin McShane. Councilwoman Dimler: I want to make a clarification here. We are just approving a concept tonight. • Mayor Chmiel: This is strictly concept plan. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So that any changes that we feel need to be made can still be made? It doesn't mean we're accepting everything we saw here? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. With that clarification, I'll call the question. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded conceptual approval of PUD 992 -5 as shown on the plans dated August 7, 1992, and approving Resolution 992 - l6 to conclude the public hearing on the West 78th Street detachment at the September 28, 1992 City Council meeting, subject to the following conditions: 1. Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, be added to the PUD at the time of preliminary PUD. ' 2. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. 1 3. The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn -in and right turn -out only, full access be limited to the other two locations shown on the site plan. 4. The three proposals for Outlot B may or may not be acceptable but each building must proceed through site plan review. This site plan review shall consider the remainder of the balance of the site. This includes landscaping impervious surface, parking, etc.. Any major changes would constitute a rezoning. 1 5. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. 6. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. 7. Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard. 8. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report. 9. Improved design of the Target store including the view from West 78th Street. • 54 City Council Meeting - September 14, 1992 10. More landscaping in the parking lot of the Target store. 11. Better design of Outlot B including the access road that runs through it. 12. Further investigation of traffic issues. 13. Consideration of pedestrian access between Target and Outlot B. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.. ' Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 ' 55 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' September 16, 1992 - Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: 1 RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PROPOSES REZONING 20.96 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A PRELIMINARY PUD AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TARGET DEVELOPMENT ON 10+ ACRES, AND AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING OF THE ENTIRE SITE, TARGET DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Bill McHale Ryan Construction Co. Fran Hagen RLK Associates Eric Johnson RLK Associates Margaret Fleck Target Corporation Ursula Dimler 7203 Kiowa Circle Dave Dimler 7203 Kiowa Circle Charlie James T.F. James Company B.C. "Jim" Burdick Excelsior Mike Mason City Council Member Kate Aanenson presented the staff report for this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. , Bill McHale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name' is Bill McHale again and we would specifically like to address what we saw as the main issues 2 weeks ago. Specifically the general architecture of the building, the elevation on 78th, landscaping and the parking lot and also Outlot B. The main thing I think you're looking at Outlot B is you shouldn't feel hamstrung about approving any concept per se here. I think that that concept has been backed off somewhat. In fact the HRA has voted to go ahead and acquire this property whether or not there is a purchase agreement in place with Ryan. So that they can make more control over it in the future. Understanding that that was tough to get a handle on and maybe it was causing more concerns with the Target parcel unnecessary. I've got Fran Hagen here tonight from RLK wh can bring you through some sections that we had done through the site. Hopefully to get more comfortable with the landscaping in general and Margaret Fleck from Target is also here to go through the building, architecturally with the rendering and explain what she's done since the last time we were here. Fran, why don't you go through the sections first. 1 Fran Hagen: To start with my name is Fran Hagen. I'm with RLK. At the Planning Commission meeting previously, in the concept level, there was concerns about the views from West 78th. We hope that some of these hav cross sections will help illustrate the points we were trying to make earlier about the views from West 78th. This first section, the top one The top section is this section right in here at the very east end of th site. I'il put it down here so you can see. East end of the site here. You can see that we are burying part of the building, and that's what we were discussing earlier. There's the, at this end over here is the plazil 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 5 area that was discussed up in the easterly corner. We have a small retaining wall up to about 6 feet at the very east end going down to a couple of feet or 1 foot about 20 feet, 30 feet into this site. Not very ' extensive because we've buried the building partially to make up some of that grade difference. Let's see. You can see here the parking. There's more grass in this area because again, it's way over here. As I ' illustrated. It's not actually through the parking area. That is what this illustrates a little bit clearer over here and that is, this section here, BB. You see at this point the grade has come down a little bit so we're not as, we're quite a bit above the building elevation. We have ' the parking. We have landscaping. We'd like to point out that since the last time you saw it, we've added landscape islands interior to this parking area along with a string of islands through this area here. We ' also found by going back and looking at using the standards of the city for a parking lot dimension, that we were able to pull the whole parking lot area up 20 feet to get more green area, as far as impervious area for ' the site. I mean pervious area for the site, not impervious. Batzli: How wide is the road through to Burdick's? A standard width road? 1 Fran Hagen: Ah yes. It's a one way road. It will be two way up at this far end. This parking lot to the north of the Target Center, or Target ' store is a one way diagonal parking system so you would come in on the south portion and then there's a turn around to come back. Well, you could also make a maneuver here and this is 30 feet, or what is it. 20, I'm not exactly sure what the standard is but it would be whatever the city standard is. I believe that's 25 feet. Batzli: How wide is the sidewalk on that edge of the building? ' Fran Hagen: Right along here, 5 feet. 1 Batzli: And does that lead to nothing at the east end then? Fran Hagen: On the east end, well there is an emergency exit. Or yeah, an emergency exit at this point right here. Batzli: And then it continues on to those bushes? Fran Hagen: It would basically end where the parking is, yes. Basically from the parking over. Batzli: Okay. Fran Hagen: You're indicating maybe some type of tie for the Burdick site? I guess I would point out that there is a sidewalk right up here. In fact there's sidewalk proposed all the way along West 78th and I would tend to feel that most of the people would be walking that direction. ' Aanenson: If I could make a clarification with the Fire Marshall. We've also asked that that sidewalk is part of a fire code thing. That the hard surface also go over towards the exiting doors. That's in his report so' part of that is the sidewalk that sort of is again a fire, for them to 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 6 get access to those doors. Around the corner. 1 Fran Hagen: Are there any other questions in regards to this section? I'll move to the other portions of the main parking lot with the next il section. • Batzli: One other question. Assuming then that people walk all the wa to the corner and don't cut through the parking lot because you've got retaining wall that's about 6 feet there, is there then a sidewalk that comes down across the island through the main drive to the front of the" store? Fran Hagen: Yes there is. Once again this parking on the north side of the building is going to be designated as employee parking. It will be circuited so that the lights stay on after the store is closed. But th was being designated as employee parking. That's about the number that they need for their employees. II Farmakes: In reality A and B are superimposed on one another. There actually would be more trees extending back from Outlot B. We're also il seeing trees in the background of A? Fran Hagen: Yes. Yes. Well, those sections, they're not superimposed if that's what you mean. 1 Farmakes: No, I understand that but they are in reality. Fran Hagen: There's actually more trees. 1 Batzli: There'd be more cars too. Fran Hagen: The next two sections again are views from West 78th. II Through sections from West 78th into the parking lot area. The top one, CC, is right in this area here. What we're trying to show there is as J1 the road bends away from the site, we are able to get a larger massing as you're looking down West 78th from down in the main part of town, we will be able to put more of a massing of trees here so that you get mor of that green appearance than say you would normally have in your 20•fol setback. I think we're approaching 40 feet wide at that point and there's quite a massing of trees proposed in that area. And again, you're not seeing the full magnitude because we're showing the trees thall actually are in that area. But as you're looking from west to east, there'd be more masses of trees and I'd call your attention to the landscape plan to see the exact number and species of trees that fall II within that area. Batzli: So we're looking west in that scale? In that view there. Fran Hagen: No, you're looking back east again because. Batzli: We're at the back of the building. II Fran Hagen: Well the building would be over in this area, if you were to see it in the background because you're looking this direction here so II II I Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 7 II the building would start right about there off in the background. And also it cuts through I guess these islands right in here. That's what those two islands are shown as. This bottom elevation is stepping back II from West 78th, say going up maybe on the Charlie James side of the road there. The north side looking down at the building. This is somewhat of a better view of how many trees. You can see the trees that are up here, 1 up on top of the hill but you can see the ones where you just see the heads of the trees. You can see that those are the ones that are down inside the parking, which is lower than the road. West 78th. Any questions on this cross section? The last two cross sections came about I kind of in reference to what City Council had requested some views of. These are from the Highway 5 side. Starting on the Highway 5 side of the project. The upper most section here, Section DD, would be straight out 1 from the building at a 90 degree at the top of that overpass. Or approach to the bridge. So that is roughly in this area here. It is showing the, it's before the truck dock. It's going through here showing I the mass of trees that exist now. Those aren't trees that we're planting. Those exist now. Other than the one tree up in here, we are proposing a string of ash and I believe they are down along where we are grading. But this mass of trees exists now and that's what the City is I trying to preserve as a screen partly and also just to preserve the existing mass of trees. This section, which is called EE, would be roughly starting here on Highway 5 and kind of looking across the I parking. Through the parking area towards the building itself. And you can see that's the entrance area of Target. We have a high portion there and you can see how much we are depressed down from that area, and you II get a somewhat picture of the massing of the trees and also... If there any other questions as you're going along, I'd be happy to answer them. Now, I'll turn it over to Margaret. I Bstzli: This was in lieu of the computer aided graphics. Fran Hagen: I guess I skipped over the landscaping itself. Do you want I to at this point address the specific landscaping or is that something? As we had mentioned, since the last time we were before you, we have tried to provide more green area on the site and in the parking lot itself trying to break it up a little bit. What we've proposed in I addition to previously submitted first of all is a string of, we're taking advantage of the allowance in the Code of some compact car. Actually I think we're allowed quite a bit more than what we're proposing I here but what we're doing is putting these smaller islands of two ornamental trees in each one of these islands and they will all be irrigated I believe. Isn't that a city requirement? II Folch: Yes. • Fran Hagen: I believe it is. I know it's a Target requirement from a 1 previous discussion we had. Krauss: We'll make it one. II Fran Hagen: We have a string of trees here. String of islands to try to soften that up, as we mentioned. We've also, because of the ability to II tighten down the dimensions and such, we found more green space down in II Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 8 through here. Specific trees, at the previous meeting was discussed 1 putting a few trees in front of the building. Those are the ornamental crab apple type of trees. I don't see the specifics there. We've got quite a mixture of different trees. I don't know specific you want me t� get at this time but we've got marshall ash along this roadway here. Over in here, especially where height is going to be a big, we want the to get up high and fast to try to soften the view of the Target from We 78th. Then we also have them proposed over here where they'd be dwarfe by the existing trees anyway if we tried to put anything other than something that grew fast and large, especially an ash. We have pin oak and lindens scattered in a lot of these different islands. The pin oak: actually are not in the islands except this large island here. Those pin oaks are in this more landscaped mass area. Batzli: How do pin oaks do with salt? Fran Hagen: This is Eric. 1 Eric Johnson: I'm Eric Johnson. I'm the landscape architect for RLK Associates. And with the salt that you're talking about, the pin oaks have located here in the back side of the building where we won't have worry about a salt spray at all. We've got the pin oaks that are set farther back into, away from the parking area here. There are the thre that we talked about in this larger island area. But due to the size o the island we'll be able to set them back farther to get away from any splashing. This island here will be irrigated as well to...the salt spray and take care of that particular row of trees. 1 Batzli: I was thinking snow removal. People might use that as a place to pile snow. Fran Hagen: Just given the nature of this parking lot, it's actually sloped this direction and given the nature of this large area, I'm relatively certainly that snow removal will be in this manner. Just in 1 looking at it from ease of, this is the most logical place for snow removal, not to mention all the depressed hole of ponding area. Batzli: Do you have any questions on the landscaping that you want to II talk about now? Farmakes: I'm concerned about the interior area. Are we talking ornamental sizing? Let's say for instance on the double areas that are on, just to the left or right of the center line of trees. Fran Hagen: Yes, those were called out for G and I. Those are crab and' hawthorne. Farmakes: So what type of heights are we talking there? r Eric Johnson: With the hawthornes we're looking at, they generally get about a 15 to 20 foot height as far as that goes. They're a rather wide spreading tree. So they work very well for screening uses. We also hav� along the front space here overstory trees. Along the center islands here, we have the overstory trees also with the mixtures of... We've ' Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 9 been mixing ornamentals in there so we don't have continual., the same species throughout the parking lot. One thing's to give the parking lot ' a little bit more character. With the ornamentals we bring in different, in the springtime we bring in colors as they bloom and they also work well with the screening. And as far as different species in the parking lot, just...we want to avoid monoculter throughout the parking lot. But ' with the alternation of the ornamental trees as well as the deciduous overstory, we get a varying heights that will help screen out. The ornamentals will work well with the 15 to 20 foot height, keeping as a ' person looks forward, out towards the building. Their eye would be blocked that way. With the large overstory deciduous tree, as your eye looks up, it's drawn upward, that takes care of the sight lines from ' above. And it acts as almost a two level of screening as far as that goes. Farmakes: Are these shown as maximum crown cover with a mature tree? ' Eric Johnson: Right now actually these are not. The ornamentals we have drawn here have about a 10 foot spread right now and with those, there'd be about a 15 or 18 foot spread. With the crabs there and the hawthornes can even get to a 25 foot. They're rather wide. These are the honey locust here. Those will get to a height of about I'd say 35 to 40 feet. And right now with your drawing, they're showing a 20 foot crown and those will max out to about a 30 foot crown with those. They get rather spreading also with maturity. So this is about a 5 year type of plan showing here. These will get much larger. ' Farmakes: As a general rule of thumb, you're saying that these crown areas indicated here, they'd be about 30% bigger when they're mature? Eric Johnson: I would say more like about almost 50 %. 50% as far as the overstory deciduous here. About 30% as far as the ornamental. ' Batzli: What's the expected life of a locust? Eric Johnson: The locust, we've seen many mature trees, especially since these islands will be irrigated, that will definitely help in the life span. But I've seen some up to 50 -60 years that have been quite large. Farmakes: There is no landscaping at all in the area to be directly to the south. There's that little strip there and then it's all open up. Your pylon sign I believe is indicated to going there. Is that correct? Fran Hagen: The pylon sign was indicated here. When they come in for the actual sign approval, which I understand is a separate approval. I know there's been some discussions about possibly moving it more towards the west just because of the grade difference here. This road is going up so fast. They want to get it as far west as they can so that, given that your height requirements... The reason for leaving this open, as I mentioned. part of the reason is just where can we put the snow. I know ' that there's been discussions about cleaning it out this way, number one. Number two, if you remember the grading plan, or I'm sure you have copies of that, this is a steep slope. 3:1 slope going down to the ponding area itself. In fact, during a high water storm or 100 year storm, I would 1 Planning Commission Meeting II September 16, 1992 - Page 10 say at least 50% of that area will be covered with water. So there are I/ lot of trees that would be sensitive to that kind of environment. So the trees are kept up on the bench. If you're looking at the grading plan, there's about a 20 foot area that's flat on top of the hill. And that' where those trees are shown. Conrad: We just discussed the parking lot. You gave more green space t' the bottom. I'm not sure the green space at the bottom really counts because you're looking over it from the highway. But you compressed the parking lot. Why didn't you take that as an opportunity to add some green space in the middle to break it up a little bit visually? In oth words, take 20 feet of that green space at the bottom, run a strip through the middle of the parking lot. Maybe meander a sidewalk througll that. You added the space. Why...do that? Fran Hagen: Well a sidewalk wouldn't give us the pervious surface firs all. We were trying to up the impervious. Or we're trying to increase the pervious surface of the site. Conrad: Because we were over the ratio? II Fran Hagen: Well the ratio was high on this site but the total package of this with this is below the 70% required. Margaret, did you want toll address that at all as far as, we did look at that type of a layout. From a maintenance standpoint, there were some reservations on Target's part as far as maintaining the. Bill McHale: That came up with staff several times and RLK I think did , draw a pictorial for Target but Target's tried this before in other locations. One specifically in St. Louis Park and they've had terrible luck with it. It's not just the volume, the lack of use. They've had lot of problems. It doesn't handle the carts movement through, the carts through the lot. And based on not being able to achieve that, they thought the next best option was to expand the green area to the south. II They have determined that they just functionally cannot live with a large pedestrian path through the middle of the lot. Conrad: See I'm surprised at that. You would think that that would add' to this, and Knollwood is not a good example. I'm real familiar with, that's a cockeyed parking lot. II Bill McHale: We're talking about St. Louis Park on Highway 100. Conrad: Yeah, that's the Knollwood shopping. II Aanenson: No, no. Knollwood's on 7. Byerly's and Target. They go between the two. ' II Conrad: Ah, okay. I'm surprised. I would think that that would add to the ability to get out to the lot. II Fran Hagen: Were there any other specific questions on the landscaping? II II Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 11 ' Farmakes: On other Target stores, do you normally do on site storage of snow removal? ' Bill McHale: Yes. Batzli: Thank you. We may have some questions later. ' Margaret Fleck: Down at the bottom here I brought in what we standardly begin with when we go out on a site. It is the basic Target building. It is the basic footprint we use and exterior that has been accepted by the Target Vice President and from there we go beyond that when required. Here in Chanhassen we've worked a great deal with the staff and of course here at this meeting previously. The building here has a 22 foot 8 height of a parapet and in doing sight line studies, we have raised our parapet to 26 foot 8 to cover all of the HVAC rooftop units and have shifted the satellite dish to the back so that we're guaranteed that it ' will not be showing by any of the sight lines. The sight lines we worked with were Highway 5 at the peak. Down a little lower and then 78th Street in several areas. Batzli: Is back east? Margaret Fleck: I had to shift it back into the roof further. We normally place it, the satellite dish is normally placed very close up because of where it drops down into the communication area that we use it for and I've shifted it back and that has, because the roof's sloping to ' the rear, it accomplishes having it covered with the 4 foot parapet. They're exactly flush with each other. The only way you would ever see anything on this roof, or should be able to see anything on this roof now is if you're above the parapet height. Farmakes: Which would be the entire Highway 5? ' Margaret Fleck: No. Highway 5 is not above the parapet height. Highway 5, the spot elevation I took I believe was 878. 978, excuse me. I got my base number off there. And our parapet height is. Aanenson: Well the bottom elevation is 958 plus. Margaret Fleck: Yeah, 984. So there's a 10 foot difference. Or a 6 foot difference there. Our parapet is 6 feet higher than the spot elevation I'm aware of being the top elevation of Highway 5. This was an earlier sight line study that was done. I don't know whether you were ever handed one of these. I know that I did work with Kate and Paul on this. Since then we have been able to verify the height of our satellite dish, and again I said we've shifted it so that we're assured that it l does not show. So nothing should show any longer. If there's any spot on Highway 5 that goes above it, which I have not found from my topo elevations, yes. It's going to be seen but it's going to be, if anything, way back here where I do not have topography on this point. All along my building I've got the topography and it is not above the parapet height. Moving along. What we have done is, our normal standard building does have some changes in the front but we've included more changes. One in particular is this area.in here that works out as a Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 12 gateway and then also is capped with the metal standing seam roof. And 1 then we've added another massing here that begins to reflect the masses on the West 78th Street side. We've also taken the two toned building 41 have here and with the additional 4 foot height, we worked with the low color and then added the two color bands that we normally use on our Greatland stores. The blue and the green and then added the red up higher so that you get more break in the building. When we're working II with the projections that project out even further than the base building, we have dropped the parapet, or dropped the wanescoat down to 3 foot 4 and that's again to accentuate that massing projecting further o� than another part of the building and you'll see that here and you also see that we've used a brown band to kind of again project that and make it pull out even further than just what you would see from the fact that, you get shadows. On the West 78th Street side here you will see these masses and in working with the staff even further, we have come up with the fact that all the masses will have the legs like this and actually look like similar to entries. They'll be recessed. This projection is" feet so you'll have a 4 foot overhang there and we'll be putting some downlights in so that during the evening they will be lit up and this wall won't be just extremely dark. We do use some security lights and wall mounted lights to light our parking lot that would be on this side II but these will be specifically to accent these masses. Batzli: You said each one of those masses will look like the one on thel far right? Margaret Fleck: Correct. And that was something we worked out with th oh yes, thank you. We did bring you a perspective this time. Excuse m and this begins to show how much the front repeats and then you begin to see what the actual massing will do at the West 78th Street side. 1 Farmakes: I have a question or clarification? The previous landscape drawing showed the roof elements being red. These are taupe color like they are here? 1 Margaret Fleck: Yes, that was our intent was to use a similar color to this down here. I'm not sure why they were accented as taupe or terra 1 cotta on the other areas. Farmakes: No, they're red in the landscape drawings. Margaret Fleck: Like a terra cotta? Farmakes: They look like red to me. 1 Margaret Fleck: Okay. Well we hadn't intended on making them Target red. I don't think that that would be, they're there as elements to reflect a residential motiff and that certainly wouldn't be appropriate.' We may choose to do that in some other area but I don't think Chanhassen, that's an appropriate color to choose for. Are you interested in a particular color? 1 Farmakes: No, I just noticed the two different colors and I'm asking which one are we looking at? 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 13 1 Margaret Fleck: No, it will stay the taupe or, my intention was for it to be a little bit shinier bronze color. Get a little bit of a polished metal color to it. Almost an iodine. I can't talk tonight. Again, a polished color. It would get a little bit more reflection than you're seeing here. ' Batzli: What is that top treatment going to be? What's the materials in that top treatment? Margaret Fleck: Meaning right in here or are we talking about the roof itself? Batzli: Yeah. ' Margaret Fleck: It will be a metal standing seam roof. The reason you see the lines is because it will have a slight panel piece and then it ' will come up as a trim piece. The one thing I haven't mentioned is the fact that at the parapet, right at the termination we'll be doing some beveling. Moving the block back and forth to give you a corbelled effect ' with the masonry itself. Farmakes: I just have a general question for you, as far as style goes. What is the reason behind the building having such a limited glass area? 1 Margaret Fleck: We really don't need the glass. We don't display materials out on the exterior. All of our sales is in the inside and it's a reachable, sellable material. The only glass we need is the glass that we need for the entry doors and that's what we put in now. Farmakes: It's not a security issue? A styling issue? You just don't need it? Margaret Fleck: Well, I think there's a security issue with it also. At ' one point we did have a little bit more glass. This front modual here is, the longer front modual is our offices for our merchandisers that are in the store. And at one point we would have given them glass but we ' don't find it one, that they necessarily need it. And two, it is a security problem. It's better if we don't have those openings. We've very careful about our doors also. ' Farmakes: So there aren't versions of this particular unit elsewhere that have more glass? ' Margaret Fleck: Earlier on versions. Perhaps 5 years ago to 10 years ago or possibly stores that we have purchased and take overs we've done to stores that are already existing. Where we've just lived with what was there. Batzli: Do you have an emergency exits on the front of the building here? 1 Margaret Fleck: Yeah, there's several of them. Well no, I shouldn't. Yeah, there's two of them. There's these two here, which will be painted 1 out the same color as the base and these two here, which there will be a 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' September 16, 1992 - Page 14 light above those in the evening. And of course they're never intended I on being used as entries. They're only exits. Farmakes: Isn't there also on your plan more lower landscaping that's I not shown here? Does that screen need more area there? Margaret Fieck: In this area? At this moment, no we had not put that in. Unless something was mentioned somewhere else that I'm not aware of. At this point it was major trees. Oh, the sign. Do you want me to show them the sign? 1 Aanenson: Sure. Margaret Fieck: These are the two signs that will be being placed. Thi is the pylon sign and this is the one that will be being in placed by th one driveway. And again, they're the two tones that we're talking about here. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Margaret Fleck: Thank you. 1 Batzli: Do you have anything else? Bill McHale: No, except to answer your questions, I think that's it. Batzli: Okay, we'll probably have some in a little bit. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission at this time? Dave Dimler: Hello, I'm Dave Dimler of 7203 Kiowa Circle here in Chanhassen. And I am presently leasing, along with my brother, Burdick's property. And I would like to address a concern that we presently have crop of pumpkins on that land and I'm here to address the issue of the grading permit. We would like to get our pumpkin crop out this year and that would go of course until Halloween on October 31st. That's where our concern is. Is just that we can get our profits out of that. We I have put a lot of time and money into getting our crop in and we would like to see the proceeds. Emmings: Did you have an agreement with Mr. Burdick about being able to, get your crop out? When you leased the land from him. Dave Dimler: The lease goes until December 31st. 1 Emmings: Alright. So you've got rights there? Dave Dimler: Yes, we do have rights. 1 Emmings: Okay. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? I Charlie James: I'm Charlie James. 1 think you all know that. II Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 15 II Emmings: Is that all you want to tell us? Charlie James: No, but you know being here tonight kind of reminds me of I the old story about the town hypochondriac that hears that there's a new doctor in town so he figures he'd better go check this guy out and see if this guy can tell him what's wrong with him. So the guy goes down to the I doctor's new office and there's no one in the waiting room but there's a big sign there and it says, initial consultation $150.00. All subsequent visits, $25.00. So when the doctor comes out to greet the man, the man jumps up and goes, nice to see you again. So that's what I'm saying to all you tonight. Nice to see you all again. Batzli: I really liked the chicken and the pig one the other night. II I've been telling people that at work. They all think it's original. Charlie James: First of all I want to say that I support this project II and I think they've got a really good looking building here. I'm in the development business and I'd be happy to be their neighbor. I think they've done a good job. Really what the issue comes down to for me is, II what's going to happen to West 78th Street. And as you probably all know, I've been kind of held hostage for the last 3 1/2 years. We had a building that was approved by your Planning Commission and City Council 3 1/2 years ago and I executed a development agreement with the City that I said that that street was going to get built and well, I guess we all know the rest of the story. I met this morning with RLK and this afternoon with Don Ashworth. And we're following kind of a two track II approach here. We're trying to work, see what happens if we go with the existing right -of -way that I prepared according to MnDot specifications. According to my development agreement or whether we'd go with the realigned location as proposed on these drawings here tonight. In a II nutshell my position is I don't care. I have two concerns. Number one is, the development agreement that I had with the City and my entire plat was based on driveways located in a certain position that were full I access driveways. So I want to make sure that I maintain the integrity of access to my northern property. And second of all, this isn't a Planning Commission issue, it's an HRA issue. I want to get a fair price I fo'r my property which recognizes the grading, the soil correction, the architectural plans, mechanical engineering plans and so forth. So I'm flexible on either way we can go there. Paul told me, Paul Krauss, told me one time when I was asking what this PUD was all about. He said, I'm I paraphrasing Paul here. He said the purpose of a PUD district is not to subvert the ordinance but to get a higher quality product. That's there some trade -offs involved but the net result should be that the City gets II a higher quality product. I don't think we should forget that part of this PUD is Outlot B. And the Council the other night asked that this matter of West 78th Street be resolved by September 28th and I agree. I II would like a resolution by September 28th. I just can't be left twisting out on the wind any longer. I can't have, I understand where these folks are coming from. I empathize with them. I know why they need to get this dirt in and let it settle over the winter. I'd like to see them get II going. But on the other hand too, if we get so focused on letting this happen and not enough attention is paid to Outlot B, I'm going to be sitting there for another year or God knows how long. I mean if we take r the pressure off the resolution of this 78th Street issue. So I'm 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 16 flexible on that. I'm trying to work with the parties. I think we had all productive meeting this morning. I had a very productive meeting this afternoon with Don Ashworth. He's going to the HRA tomorrow. So I gues in summary I'd just say, I'd like a resolution of this thing by Septembe 28th. I've just got to, know where I stand on this road. And otherwise Target will proceed and I'll be just kind of left twisting in the wind again. So I support the project and my opinion as a developer, I think they've done a good job on the building. Like I say, I'd be proud to be/ their neighbor. And I guess in closing, I'll just tell you the rest of that story. The doctor comes out and says come on in. Let me hear what your problem is. So the doctor's thumping the guy on the chest and he goes, oh God, this is bad. This is bad. And he thumps him some more an goes, oh. This is bad. He says, let me hear you breathe.. The doctor says, this is bad. And the patient says, doc what's wrong? What's wrong? Am I going to live? What's going on here? And the doctor says, well if you just keep doing what I told you to do during our initial consultation, you'll live. Thank you very much. Batzli: Can I paraphrase something you said? You don't, I think I heard you say that you don't care where the road goes but you need a resolution. Was that true? You don't care if it's moved south? Charlie James: No, really they're HRA issues. Let me tell you what some of the issues are here. If you want to know. ' Batzli: Give us the Reader's Digest version. Charlie James: You guys know I can't do that. You've known me long enough. Basically if we go with this kind of realignment here, what wil happen is, where the existing alignment that we had previously. It kind of came down here like so. So I'd be getting that alignment back plus al strip here. I don't know, maybe 12 to 30 feet wide. And I guess what I would like to see here. I didn't speak up during the first Planning Commission meeting. I was trying to show my support by being here and keeping my big mouth shut. I figured it was better for me to be here an keep my mouth shut than to not be here and have you wonder why I wasn't here. So I wish I would have spoke out about that issue about the right turn, right in thing here because that kind of complicates the negotiations that are going on right now. But if we go with this kind o an alignment, which is fine with me, what I'd like to see is this entrance closed. I'd like to see a signal here and if Target wants a signal down here too, that's fine with me. I'd like to see some sort of cul -de -sac come in here to serve these properties and then I'd like to have, I had a full access point approved. This is 210 feet back from thll center line from the property line. I had a full access point approved 300 feet back. So in order to facilitate this, if I'm going to accommodate everybody here by kind of getting blown out of the water, I' at least like to have some good access retained on my property to the north. In order to facilitate that, I'd like to see this closed. We've had some discussions with Strgar about a signal here. I understand Target works here. There's some issues here as to whether or not I'll II ever be able to build a driveway here but we're talking about that. Basically my property's on a slope. Their property's on a slope. They want to lower the grade of the road so they have less of a slope into Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 17 ' their property but that raises the slope up into my property. So I'm trying not to get brain damage about this. We're trying to work it out. I'm hoping we're gonna. 1 Batzli: Why does a right turn in and right out effect you across the way there? Charlie James: You know in talking to Strgar, they start out with the best case scenario and then they kind of enumerate what happens there. And so the best case scenario, if I'm going to have this, is to have nothing over here. Then the next case scenario would be on and on and I think there's some sense to having this traffic coming off of a controlled intersection and according to Strgar and the conversations ' we've had, the difference in travel time here. Coming from this direction westbound. The studies have shown that as I understand them, most of the customers are going to come from the north and the west and ' from the south. They're certainly not going to come from Eden Prairie back this way. So they're going to be entering from this direction here. So what Strgar is saying is that the travel differential and time between being able to turn here and simple going down to a stop light and turning here to get in, really is insignificant. But what does make a big difference for me, if I'm trying to do all this stuff to accommodate this development, is if all this traffic's coming from the west, how the heck ' do they get into my property up here where these two lots were where I had a driveway granted? Are they going to drive all the way down to the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre and do a U turn in their parking lot to come back? So these are just, I'm just giving you sort of an idea of some of the issues that are trying to be worked on there. Batzli: Are you looking for a full intersection then at the entrance to your? Charlie James: Here? Batzli: Yeah. ChF.rlie James: No. I'm looking, there'd be a left turn lane there and ' there'd only be a movement to the north here. By eliminating the thing to the south, that's like the second best or you know, on this enumerated list of scenarios, that reduces...conflicts there and facilitates me having access into the land. Because I feel that to lose that access to my land to the north is really a down zoning because then it turns it into like a destination visit like an office or something where you've got to sit there and go, get on your personal computer and go, now how do I get to this place. Now I've got an appointment at 5:00 and rather than convenient shopping. So those are some of the issues and I think we're starting to have some productive meetings now and I'm trying to be flexible both ways. There's some other issues that there goes some existing alignment. I want to be accommodating. I want to facilitate this development. I think it's good for Chanhassen. I think this project will give people who have never had a reason to come and even stop in Chanhassen before, a reason to come here. Shop and that's going to help your downtown merchants. And it's going to help me and things across the street. So I support this project but I have to, you know I'm 1 Planning Commission Meeting II September 16, 1992 - Page 18 being asked to change this. Change that. Change this, and there's only so far I can go before the negative impacts start to outweigh the positive benefits and so those are the issues that we're negotiating now I'm hoping that in the next two weeks we'll be able to solve these issue to everyone's satisfaction. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I Farmakes: Can I ask you a quick question? Yeah, you mentioned that your marketing studies show that customers are coming•from the north, west all south. Charlie James: I believe that's what was Strgar did. They did a traffic study. Farmakes: Earlier they considered coming from the east. Charlie James: Fran, is that right? Didn't Strgar's study show that th majority of the traffic would be coming from, eastbound on West 78th Street from the west. II Aanenson: There's a chart in the staff report. Fran Hagen: There is a chart in the staff report. 1 Farmakes: I took that to mean from the east period. From the east on TH 5. I Krauss: The east on TH 5 and down TH 101. Powers Blvd. is a very minor player in the traffic forecast. I FermakeE: There was a high percentage of people coming east on TH 5. Less on TH 101 and TH 5 coming from the west. Is that correct? I Pill McHale: You may want to go up on the overhead and show them. Fran Hagen: This won't work on that overhead. II Dill McHale: Oh... Fran Hagen: Coming from this direction, I'm sorry from Highway 5 and II Powers, the total of, I'm sorry. Coming up Powers is a total of 1,071. About 300 are turning this direction. It says p.m. peak hour movement. They didn't go to Highway 5. Unfortunately, they just show it. I don't!' know if this was included in your packets. Aanenson: Yes, it was. I Fran Hagen: But 78th, they have 421 at Kerber it appears. If I'm reading this correctly. 421 coming straight thru to the, or coming, it' not saying that the destination is here necessarily. This is p.m. peaks for the entire roadway. This is not specifically one site's destination. Kerber at this intersection they're showing a total of 427 making this movement into Monterey I guess it's called when you go south of West I 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 19 1 78th. 123 going north on Kerber and 421 going thru that direction to the west. Coming down Kerber itself, very minimal. 88 turning turning towards the Target side. ' Bill McHale: How about coming off of Powers going east on 78th? ' Fran Hagen: That was the 300. That's all that's shown there is 300 coming around this corner here. Bill McHale: Okay, so we've actually got more traffic coming from the east than the west. Fran Hagen: Yes. Charlie James: That doesn't jive with what's in the report here because they talk about generating 7,000 trips a day. 1 Fran Hagen: This is just a p.m. peak count. Charlie James: Okay, but I'm saying, they're talking about 7,000 trips a day just to the Target. Somewhere in here. Fran Hagen: Right. Strgar- Roscoe, I do not believe addressed Target specifically. They were addressing all the different business districts that are along the West 78th. Am I right Kate? ' Aanenson: That's correct. That whole super block. Fran Hagen: That's what this report is. The whole super block. Not just Target. These numbers do not mean that 300 are making the turn at Powers and West 78th and coming to Target specifically. Conrad: Did they know Target was a factor? r Krauss: Oh sure, yeah. ' Farmakes: So you're actually showing more trips on Monterey during peak hours than you are showing coming east on Powers and 78th? Emmings: That's what it says. 1 Farmakes: I'm not a traffic engineer but that doesn't sound right to me to a dead end street with... Emmings: A dead end street with no business except one little one. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else that would like to address the Commission? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Good evening. B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. First of all, please don't change those figures on Monterey. Now maybe Paul would help me a bit by pointing at certain items. Paul or Kate. I went along with 5 or 6 different things that I didn't care about in my purchase agreement with the HRA or the City of Chanhassen. And one of Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 20 the things that is favorable to me in agreement is that there should be 1 good access between the Target parking lot and our two lots. And I just wanted to bring this up. This is part of the agreement. And secondly,' it's very important to us, we want a semifore at Kerber and 78th. As they just said, by the way I didn't have anything to do with this report or paying for it. To route traffic on Monterey but there's going to be lot of truck traffic there if nothing else. And we no longer want to call it Monterey. I'll bring that up again but I corresponded with Tod Gerhardt about 2 months ago about changing Monterey to Kerber. Everyone of the property owners has given me a letter saying that it's fine with I them. They'd like to have it changed to Kerber. Somebody from Market Square, Chaska Tool and Ryan Construction and Target. So I'm going to put that as Kerber. Anyway, it's quite essential to us we•have a semifore at Kerber as part of this deal because as you folks can see, I these two lots have been hurt quite a bit by the configuration. The configuration of Market Square which largely faces to the east and a configuration of Target which faces to west. When they originally I started doing on this, the Target store was an angle facing northwest. Whereas we finally agreed that they could turn the store so we'd actually be behind this store so we do want these two items to offset part of th' damage. That would be the very good access from Target's parking lot ar' a semifore at Kerber and 78th. That's all unless there's some questions. Batzli: The current way that they have the access aligned through the parking lot, you consider that adequate? You're not asking for more th what's currently in the plans are you? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No, just one entrance. ' Batzli: But you've looked at the plans and you're comfortable with what's currently designed? B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Well strangely, I probably haven't. This plan's been changed no less than 50 times. I have about this thick on a table!' in my office and which is the latest one, I never know. Batzli: But that's a one way into his property isn't it? Krauss: No. Batzli: Two way? ' Aanenson: Oh two way, yeah. You can go both ways. Bill McHale: You can go either way. ' B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, I'd want two way. Fran Hagen: Out of his property there's no, it's a straight up shot. Out of his property it's straight up this way because you'd be following the right side of the road and you'd be straight out. That's why we ' inverted so the parking comes in this way and comes out this way so it was a straight in shot to his property. And coming out of his property, again you would come in through here and you would have to go like that.' I Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 21 I Come through this parking and turn. It's two directional here but it's one way coming to it. I Batzli: Okay. You confused me earlier. Does Mr. Burdick then gain some sort of driveway easement recorded against the Target property? I Krauss: Well actually, that's a reasonably good condition for the plat. In it's entirety it's all in one PUD so we have the ability to do that easily. I Aanenson: That's why we wanted to include him in the PUD to make sure that that access was maintained and he is part of that. I Krauss: But it will be in separate ownership. It should have a cross access easement. As should all the lots on Outlot B. Batzli: Yeah, okay. Thank you. Go ahead. I Charlie James: If you look on page 14 of the, I don't know if these are all sequentially, but it was the August 29th. Third paragraph it says, I Strgar- Roscoe has looked at the traffic generation and completed future peak trip generations for West 78th Street and Powers based on complete development of this area. Both sides of West 78th as commercial. Even I with total development, traffic will not exceed the design capacity. The ultimate ADT for this area going south on Powers, south on Powers and east on West 78th would be 3,830 or an increase from the current levels of 800 trips. So you're going to have 3,000 more cars coming up to the I north. The projected ADT's from Powers Blvd., coming here running east onto West 78th Street would be 10,071, an increase of 7,000 trips. This increase occurs only on the short section of Powers between Highway 5 to I West 78th Street. North of West 78th Street there will be a 10% increase in traffic over existing levels. So that in fact verifies this if you reference page 14. For the traffic counts. 1 Batzli: Okay. Is there any other public comment? Mike Mason: Mike Mason, 833 Woodhill Drive. I suspect I'm speaking more II as a Council member now but I just have a few concerns. The discussion about the middle sidewalk. As I'm looking at that I'm thinking, if I was shopping at Target and I wanted to go to a restaurant, I'm not going to I walk to 78th Street. Hike up there and then go back down 78th Street and come down. There is a middle sidewalk on the Target in South Minneapolis and Hiawatha so it has been done, unless it's been removed. I'm also I concerned about lights and how long they'll be on. After hours, that kind of thing. Security lights, fine. I mean I know it has to be done but how much more light is there going to be in Chanhassen because of this? Also, the landscaping on West 78th, as I was just sitting talking I with Councilwoman Dimler, evergreens sure would be nice as opposed to deciduous trees. The trouble with deciduous is, in the winter we don't see much. Just on the West 78th side there. 1 Aanenson: I think there's a mix. I can double check. 1 Planning Commission Meeting , September 16, 1992 - Page 22 Mike Mason: Yeah, and there may be enough evergreens there now but just' as I've been spending a lot of time to think about this and thinking about the presentation from Monday. Just some concerns that I'd either be bringing up now or at the next Council meeting, so thanks. Aanenson: Could I just make a comment that we raised in the staff report to make sure that it's clear that Target has a lighting policy that's II inconsistent with our's. We specifically made that a condition because that was brought up before at the Planning Commission and that's the half foot at the property line. Their standard is one foot. We did make not of that as a condition that they meet our standards for lighting. Eric Johnson: If I could address the issue of the evergreen trees. We have looked at evergreen trees in the widest portion of the island. Of the areas between West 78th and the Target parking lot. The reason we not have more is the concern for the salt spray on these coniferous trees. The coniferous trees have a very bad problem with the salt spray and survival rate is rather low when they're planted close to the road. ' That was the reason why we did not include more coniferous trees. We do have them here at the widest point because they're able to set back from' the spray and their survival there would be pretty good. Emmings: There's some in that parking lot just to the north too isn't there? ' Eric Johnson: Right here in these two. Along the parking lot area, the speeds generated should not spray the salt that much but along West 78th' when you get the higher speeds, salt and the snow is kicked farther out. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anymore public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Farmakes: I'd like to start out with the sign first. I've got a couple questions about the sign. I have heard 34, 30 and 36 feet on the pylon II sign. Which one are we talking? The plans show 34. The copy shows 36 and, is the ordinance 30? Aanenson: On the PUD, no. We didn't put a specific height regulation o' this because we weren't exactly sure where the placement would be and to get their visibility. That was one, we left that open. Farmakes: Okay, which one within the figures of 34 and 36? Which one's' the, the sign here says 34. Aanenson: Right. I'm assuming that's what it should be. Margaret Fleck: Again, we're a little concerned to commit completely until we actually get the sign set up. I understand that there is a specific permit that needs to go out on that. Because of the proposal, either to set it here or in here, it's a low dip point and of course the pylon sign's probably the most important to be able to visually see off I Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 23 of Highway 5. With Highway 5 at the height it's at, we could end up losing 10 -15 feet of that base of the sign. 1 Farmakes: So you haven't chosen a location? Margaret Fleck: No, we haven't chosen a location or truly a height. Farmakes: Would that be taken care of at a later date? ' Krauss: Well actually as a PUD, it should be designated on the site plan since the normal sign ordinance doesn't apply in a PUD unless you deem it to apply. Now in this case we've been fairly restrictive on signage. I mean we're limiting the number of pylon signs. If you go back to some of ' the original meetings we had with Morrish and the HRA and how the site plan developed in the first place, we always acknowledged that Target was going to need a fairly large single, architecturally designed pylon sign ' because we've got the building tucked back behind the trees we're trying to save. If you want to put a maximum, not to exceed 40 feet, I think that would be a good number. I mean they can shift that sign down on the site and see what works the best and we can work with them. But it should be written into a set of sign covenants that are adopted with the PUD contract. Farmakes: So your answer is, we can take care of that later? • Aanenson: No. 40 feet. A maximum of 40 feet. ' Batzli: Shall not exceed 36 feet. Emmings: That's what it says now in the condition that's here. Batzli: It says they're entitled to one. ' Farmakes: If they have a case for changing that later, they can do that later? ' Krauss: Sure. Farmakes: The next question I have in regards to the sign is the color of red then. Is that the more blood red that's on the tower or is that the warm red that's on the Target's -logo? Margaret Fleck: I'm sorry. Farmakes: The red that you're using here, that you're indicating here on the plans. Is that on a white plexiglass and is that a 185 red or is that a darker red that you're using in the architectural item? Margaret Fleck: ...when you say 185, you're talking. Farmakes: I've seen Target as a very bright red and I've also seen it as a darker red. 11 Margaret Fleck: It was intended on being a bright red. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 24 Farmakes: I don't know if that's on purpose or if it just happened to that way. Margaret Fleck: ...back lit or not back lit... I Farmakes: Is it off white? Is it bright white? Is it cream? What is that? ' Margaret Fleck: I believe it's bright white. Batzli: Yellows to a fine cream over the years. II Margaret Fleck: Not if we can help it. II Farmakes: And you're showing that as a gray, so the red pole that's described in the copy here, that's not a consideration then? • Margaret Fleck: The pole being described, are you thinking of the II narrative? Farmakes: I was talking about the pylon. The red pole. 1 Margaret Fleck: ...no. II Farmakes: So that then will be a gray or that will be the color of the building? Margaret Fleck: The base will be the brown color... II Farmakes: Okay, so that's not as the plan that you have it there? Thall you're holding. Color wise. That would be a more tan, taupe, whatever Margaret Fleck: That was... Farmakes: Okay. I'm not sure on the entrance. Just the questions that I have listed here based on going through the material here so for a moment if we can get out to Outlot B. When we have 50% of the surface Outlot B, or the buildings on Outlot B, don't we have a maximum cap the that the sign can be? Say for instance if they have no windows or whatever on the sign facing the highway, is that 15% of the entire wall il of the building? Or do we have a maximum? Not to exceed. Aanenson: We don't right now, no. Farmakes: Okay, I know Minnetonka does. That'd be a concern of mine. I That we don't wind up again like with something that we have with Holiday or something. That we have a very large wall so you wind up with a ver large backlit outdoor billboard. Bigger than the pylon sign. Jumping back to the landscaping and tree preservation. On the plan they show an area on Outlot A and I asked Paul about this earlier. He answered my questions but I just want to go over it so it's on the record. There i on page 15 comments as to sort of eludes that the applicant will be doin the thinning out and I want to clarify that that property is the HRH's and they will be, if not doing that themselves, contracting to have it II II ' Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 25 ' done. Where the property borders next to the truck delivery point behind Target, there still is a, from the tree chart a significant overflow of ' oaks into that area and I'm wondering, is there an agreement as to how those will be trimmed? On the plan it shows that the crown cover comes quite close to the actual impervious surface area. Is that, is there a tighter landscape version of that than what we have here? Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes, we share the concern in that area. It's kind of hard to tell with this level of plan development exactly what's ' happening. We've been reviewing "it with an eye towards pulling things back to the minimum required. Some of this is also going to have be staked out in the field before grading work starts and we'll make decisions out in the field. We put in, we have a standard condition for e tree preservation that allows us to do that and to modify grading plans in the field. Even up to requiring small retaining walls if that works. So you're really not certainly until the thing is staked out. ' Farmakes: I haven't walked through the whole thing. Is that bordered area that goes through there, are those full mature oaks? 70 year oaks or, it just shows oaks on there. Krauss: It's really mixed. I've walked it a couple of times and Pica Drive is really the dividing line between the better quality material which is to the south and the lesser quality. Although when you view it in a distance it looks kind of bulky and green. That stuff's to the north. Scattered in amongst it there are some quality trees that some of ' those are inevitably going to be lost but the better quality stuff is further to the south and again we're going to meander that line as much as possible. Farmakes: With Outlot B, again we're going back to Outlot B. The fast food areas. Is there, it puts a limit of two in this but you're doing a PUD and the limit of 2, if Target controls that property, is that still a ' site application type situation where they have to still get city approval, correct? Aanenson: Correct. Farmakes: So if say a Hardee's comes in and they want to build an orange plexiglass building, is that? Krauss: You've got it tied up every which way from Sunday. I mean basically the zoning on the property will be the PUD designation with those limitations and provisions of the PUD contract, one of which is that you're limited to two fast foods. Another of which is that the fast foods have to be architecturally consistent with the theme that's established by Target and recognizing the fact that they're in downtown Chanhassen. So if it doesn't meet those goals, you're under no obligation to approve it. Farmakes: Okay. And the signage for it, let's say we get Hardee's. I'm just using that as a good example. The Hardee's as it stands right now, the proposal is 15 %, two sides of the building and a pylon sign for each then building? Or how many pylon. . 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 26 Aanenson: One pylon sign for the rest of the outlots identifying all th outlots. So if there's four, they get one pylon sign. Then they each get a monument sign only. For each parcel, and then the wall sign. II Farmakes: Okay, I'm confusing maybe the monument and the pylon sign. The pylon sign then would have a height level then of. II Aanenson: 8 feet. Farmakes: 8 feet. II Aanenson: Monument? Farmakes: Pylon. I'm talking about the pylon sign. Not the monument II sign. You show pylon on, let's see. That's page 8. Staff is proposing one free standing pole sign to be permitted for Target and one on the il other buildings in Outlot B. Is that then the outlot generically when you talk about that or a building? Say a Hardee's or. Krauss: I'm sorry, we were chatting. II Farmakes: Okay, on page 12. Paragraph, or excuse me, Finding. One for the other buildings in Outlot B. 1 Aanenson: One free standing sign exceeding 8 feet. Farmakes: Per building? 1 Aanenson: No, no, no. No, no, for all four outlots. One. Farmakes: For all four? 1 Aanenson: Correct. II Farmakes: Okay. Next question I have is on there's a bituminous trail mentioned on 20. I had heard somewhere in the background that Chanhasse wouldn't be building anymore bituminous trails. I sure hope that you reconsider the Park and Rec Commission is recommending an 8 foot bituminous trail along Powers Boulevard. The City's had really a bad record of bituminous trails. Just really an awful record. It is, I certainly hope something for the City to look at to avoid using that and go to something that is more useable for people than a bituminous trail. The example that I'm using is the one on Lake Ann where there's a II bituminous trail dug out and then they wound up putting in a paved surface. Everyone uses the paved surface. To go on with strollers and so on. I hope you really reconsider because that bituminous trail that the City had worked on for, it must have been 6 years at least, never go 1 any better and actually got worse. It was a good collection point for old shoes and beer cans when they brought in whatever fill they were using. They kept on redumping it every other year and I hope we don't II wind up with something like that. And lastly, the study, the traffic study. For some reason I keep on being told that this has all been worked out but I just have a gut feeling this is going to wind up to be II something that is what it wasn't supposed to be. And I'm looking at 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 27 these peak hour numbers that we've got here. I drive on that road 2 -3 times a day and something just isn't right about that and I'm sure there are smarter people here, some of the traffic managers or City Council people that can question that further. Something just doesn't seem right there. And having worked on some studies and, not on traffic studies but sometimes studies can say what you want them to say. I hope you look long and hard at that. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Steve. Emmings: What happens to Outlot C? That will become. Aanenson: That will go back to Mr. James. Emmings: Okay. As far as the discussion in the staff report concerning the development standards and you stated their position and the staff's ' position. I take it that I didn't compare what you'd written there with what wound up in the conditions but I take it that the staff's position on all those points made their way into the condition. Krauss: Yeah. Emmings: Okay. Generally I think it's better than it was. I don't understand what, when you talk about these, let me find the language here. They talk about the facades on West 78th Street having back lighting. She explained that they're going to change the design of those and that there'd be some. Aanenson: Right, that's what I mean. They'll be lit. Emmings: So the lighting that's coming down on the side though that you're calling back lighting? Just so I know what you mean. Aanenson: Yes. Emmings: Alright. And as far as Outlot B is concerned. Somebody said something earlier about the HRA buying that. The gentleman from back ' here said something about that. Now I don't know what we're doing tonight, you know there are conditions in the preliminary plat approval and the PUD approval that effect what can happen on Outlot B. But now is there a plan to change the ownership of that so we shouldn't be worrying about that? ' Krauss: Our recommendation to you is not to worry about anything other than the fundamental development concept of Outlot B, which is also somewhat up in the air right now. There's a lot of negotiating going on between Ryan and Mr. Burdick and Mr. James and our City HRA, and it ' should all, I hope become clear who's doing what to whom and when within the next 2 weeks. Emmings: But you want us to ignore that? Krauss: Well yeah. I think the thing for you to look at is how is Outlot B laid out and keep in mind, Outlot B is laid out right now based Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 28 upon a shift of 78th Street which is looking increasingly like it's goi11 to happen. But we're not even sure of that because the City's got a role in this and we have to build 78th Street and we're not looking to II engender a lot of increased cost by shifting this. There's a lot of things that will be decided by the time this gets to the Council meeting in 2 weeks. Coincidentally, when this item gets to the City Council on the 28th, the City Council is also going to be hearing the, is it lettirl the project Charles? Or issuing the contract? Folch: Yeah, that's correct. The continuation of the public hearing II which was first held last March will basically retake place again on the" 28th, or is scheduled to. The Council on Monday night passed a resolution to basically continue the hearing that night. Emmings: Hearing? What hearing? Krauss: On the construction program for 78th Street. I Emmings: Oh, okay. Krauss: So all these things, and we've got that actually on the agenda 1 before Target so the City Council's going to make the final decision. Now if some of those decisions have a bearing on what Outlot B looks like, either because of final arrangements between the property owners or because the road shifts back to where it originally was, we've thrown al condition in here that says, within 30 days they have to bring a revised plan for the concept for Outlot 8 back to you for your approval. The 1 Target site stands alone. I mean throughout all this the Target site plan itself isn't doing anything at all. Emmings: Well but the action, we're taking on the preliminary plat and II the rezoning, that effects all the properties? Krauss: Yes it does. 1 Emmings: And the site plan effects, is only directed at the Target site? Krauss: Correct. 1 Emmings: And the interim use permit effects all the property again? II Aanenson: Correct. Emmings: Really it's all that's south of 78th Street. Alright. I understand that I guess. One objection I have, oh and then, well do you Batzli: Steal my thunder, please. 1 Emmings: Geez, frightening. If the two lots that are east of the Target building, north of Pica Drive, that's included in the, not in the rezoning but in the PUD? 1 Krauss: No, they're one in the same thing. II ' Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 29 Batzli: Yeah, they'll be rezoned to PUD. Emmings: I'm sorry, they're not included in the preliminary plat but they're included in the rezoning. Aanenson: They're in the plat. ' Krauss: No. They're already platted. Aanenson: Oh, they're platted, yes. I'm sorry, right. Emmings: They're already platted so they're part of the PUD but not part of this preliminary plat. Alright. - Batzli: How can you do that? Krauss: All the underlying. The description of what was advertised and the legal description for the rezoning covers the entirety of it. ' Batzli: I agree. Krauss: The plat only covers that portion of it outside of those two ' lots that Mr. Burdick is going to continue to own. Batzli: Well you've got it set up as one motion that we're approving rezoning and preliminary plat and then you're going to eventually need to include as one of the conditions a cross license or something. Easement of the driveways which will effect that. Don't you need two motions then? One just for the rezoning which you'd include in that one ' condition and that'd be the plat. You'd have to include it in there. Emmings: I don't know. Batzli: Okay, I'll let Roger worry about it before the City Council. Krauss: It's a situation where we have willing buyers, willing sellers, and all of us are agreeing to do it so it's not as though the cross access easement needs to be forced onto the situation. I'd like you to make a condition that the cross access easements be provided. Batzli: Well see my concern is, in our motion to rezone, we don't have anything which indicates what we're rezoning. In our motion. 22.03 acres. It doesn't say when. Doesn't say where. Aanenson: It references the site plan though. Batzli: But the site plan. r Aanenson: Includes all the. Batzli: Okay, if you looked at the dotted lines and kind of guessed, maybe it does. Aanenson: We can do exhibits, make the two exhibits if you'd like. Planning Commission Meeting , September 16, 1992 - Page 30 Emmings: Well I think you can tell from the preliminary plat plus we know... The cross easements for ingress and egress between Lot 1 in the new plat and Outlot B and also between the Target site and the Burdick I property, should that be under number 1 on the preliminary plat conditions? Are those Plat easements? Aanenson: Yes. ' Krauss: They'd be recorded with the plat, yeah. Emmings: Okay. So that's where that should appear? Aanenson: E? 1 Batzli: E, yeah. Emmings: And then I guess the only real reservation I have is having tw' fast food restaurants out on Outlot B. On that basis alone I'd oppose this motion. The preliminary plat. But other than that, it seems to be a pretty good plan to me. ' Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: One thing that I wasn't quite clear of was the grade change on` West 78th Street. Is that actually part of this proposal? Meaning will there be West 78th Street excavated that foot and a half. Krauss: Well, again I mean that gets into, there's been a lot of previous designs with this. The original design of 78th Street always lowered 78th Street by, 2 feet? 2 -3 feet? , Folch: At that one particular location. Krauss: At the main entrance into Target. The current proposal would 1 result in it being lowered marginally further. But again those final plans need to be laid out and there's some peripheral negotiations between Mr. James and Ryan and how the sites might balance earth wise. II Ledvina: Will that work on West 78th, be part of the interim use permit? Or would they propose to leave that alone? ' Krauss: No, that's a city project. Ledvina: Okay. So there wouldn't be any road work done this year then?" Krauss: Well, if the contract was let, it would be let for spring start Folch: Correct, spring of next year. Ledvina: Okay. But the grading work will be, the grading work for this site would be done this year right? This fall? ' Krauss: For the Target store, yes. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 31 II Ledvina: I think the modified views look really good. I think that the ..features are really going to improve the building and I'm happy to see the changes that are made. I guess we haven't talked about the walkway II connecting Outlot 8 and I think that that should be part of the proposal. I would support the staff in desire to make that a part of this. Other than that, I don't have anything else. 1 Conrad: Are we giving Target the exposure that, are you comfortable with the exposure you're getting on Highway 5? 1 Bill McHale: I think that what's their concern with what the pylon. ...they realize with trees there... II Conrad: I guess I don't want to hide you. I really don't. Bill McHale: They're trusting that the pylon will take care of that. I They know that the block of trees effectively screen. That was something that staff wanted... I Conrad: And we haven't restricted that pylon to the point where it's not. Bill McHale: I don't think so. II Conrad: Okay. II Batzli: Ladd, given the fact that they have absolutely no landscaping to the southwest of the building, we're looking over a pond. We're looking exactly at the top of the building from the road and we're looking at a II couple hundred thousand square foot parking lot or something. Are you serious that you think this thing is hidden? Conrad: Coming from the east. II Batzli: Okay. I Conrad: And I really don't, I honestly don't have a problem with giving, you know we constantly appear at times we're trying to hide some things. I think if we do things in taste, we can do it very well and we can give II the folks who are moving in the exposure. Emmings: But Ladd, you're worried about hiding the biggest thing in Chanhassen. I don't know if you have to worry about it. II Conrad: No, people will find it. 11 Farmakes: Anybody that wants to. Emmings: Gee, where can it be? II Batzli: Traffic on West 78th Street. What's planned for 78th Street? Folch: What's currently and has been on the table for some time, at 11 least as it relates to the portion of 78th Street between Kerber 11 Planning Commission Meeting " September 16, 1992 - Page 32 and Powers is to reconstruct the detachment section to a four lane, " divided urban roadway with right and left turn lanes. And we hope to be able to reinitiate the process and continue forward with this project II starting on September 28th's Council meeting by completing the public hearing and ordering the project, authorizing preparation of plans and specs. The other portion of the project as it relates to the segment of West 78th Street from Kerber to Great Plains Boulevard is kind of a side' or sub project, if you will, of this overall downtown improvement. That will involve, at least at this, in the interim, reconstructing if you will the segment between Laredo and Kerber to also a four lane divided III section consistent with what the new construction going on between Kerb and Powers. Basically that segment will involve moving both the north curved line and the south curved line to add additional lanes and providing the right turn lane to southbound Market from eastbound 78th t" southbound Market. Exactly what will happen with Laredo to Great Plains, is not yet been decided. There's some ideas on the table as far as what we can do to improve the traffic serviceability in that area. Some of I the ideas on the table involve some minor widening. Some median noses being tapered back to allow better turns for trucks. And overall, there's the issue of traffic signals. Strgar's study has basically provided justification for signals at least 3 intersections. That being, Great Plains, Market Boulevard and also Powers Boulevard. Both the volume standpoint and an economic standpoint. But there's also unlikely to be the need to look at potential signals. I mean we have other non - volume type needs at the intersection of like Laredo where you've go fire trucks, emergency response vehicles coming out. A lot of other traffic at Kerber. There's still a lot of things apart from the traffics signal standpoint that need to be worked out. Traffic signals are a bi thing. They're expensive. It's a big change to the downtown. Conrad: Could Target move in without modification to 78th to the east o, Kerber? Would you allow, having 800 cars on a peak hour coming through from Highway 101, is that tolerable? Could it handle 800 an hour? The way it is now? • Folch: Without signals, that's tough. Without at least having some sort of traffic control, that's a tough question to answer. " Conrad: Can it handle it with one lane as it is? Folch: 5o much as handling thru traffic or as much as handling, I think" where the problem lies in is not so much handling the thru traffic as it is the side streets that feed the downtown. The cars that need to come out and have safe access. Have safe time intervals. That becomes a problem. The more cars you throw on the main drag. Conrad: I don't know, I think one of the bigger problems here is traffi handling and until there's a plan in place to handle the traffic, we can " make the visits to Target or anyplace, we have to be really comfortable that we have the traffic system in place. And Target's a huge draw. Absolutely huge and if these are accurate numbers, I can't assess that. " Obviously. Somebody hired to do this knows their job but I also know that Target draws from a huge area and will draw from a huge area and we'll just have to make sure that the systems there. " Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: Ladd, just to reassure you. The 78th Street construction plan as Mr. Burdick and Mr. James know have been going through evolutionary changes. I mean this is about the third or fourth design and through it all it's because we finally have an understanding of what's happening on 78th Street. Now when.Market Boulevard, when Market Square was approved, at a staff level we became very concerned that 78th Street in front of ' Market Square was only two lanes. And had some reservations about even that working. Now the improvement that's going to occur with this project is one that the city wanted to do and has needed to do on 78th Street for years. It's just going to finally get done. We have added 11 that second lane in each direction. There are some. Conrad: Ah, but you're talking from Powers. r Krauss: From Powers over to Market, yeah. Conrad: Yeah. I'm not uncomfortable with that. I think you have that ' under control. That's new stuff. I'm worried about the old stuff. I'm worried about where a lot of your traffic is coming from. Krauss: I mean Strgar's telling us, I mean as Charles pointed out, there are some inherent design problems that I think we've all encountered in the originally rebuilt section from Laredo on over. That the turn radii are kind of tight. Some of the turn movements don't work very well and Strgar has come up with plans to improve that. Long term, by the year 2000 I think is the number that Strgar uses, the year usually uses, that other section too is going to have to be four lane. But they didn't see 11 that as an immediate need. You need to have those safety improvements down there to make turning easier but you don't need the fourth lane all the way through. ' Conrad: That's real surprising I guess. I think with Festival coming into town, they're a good retailer. Market Square. They're going to ' draw and you combine a Target, you're going to find out that we have traffic folks. And I'm going to...but I'm not convinced Paul. I'm really not convinced that we've got a traffic system in place coming from the east. I'm comfortable from the Powers that it's okay. But I certainly am not comfortable coming from the east and I don't see a sequence right now that says hey, we're going to be able to tolerate traffic coming from the east. I'll let that one lay but powerful ' retailers coming in. And powerful draw from the north. Just a last couple points. I think they're doing a lot of really neat things about the elevations. I'm still not comfortable on the north elevation. Just some basic things that always bother me a little bit when you put employee parking on your main street, that bothers me. But I won't, I'm not going to press that. I think some things have been done, how do you break up a 380 foot wall? That's, and does it count. Whatever we do, does it count? That one I've been struggling with and I've tried to look at the elevations that came in tonight and say geez. I've bet you I've driven downtown 20 times trying to figure out how this will look down there and how it fits in and it's just a hard thing to comprehend, especially when we, I think what we've done so far is really pretty nice downtown. I really like how, there's obviously some problems here and there but overall it's a pretty good community feel. Then I try to sink 11 Planning Commission Meeting , September 16, 1992 - Page 34 this in. Yet on the other hand I know what the future of retailing is II and it's of the Targets of the world that do it and so how do we sink it into the downtown area and have we done a good job? Is the question. You know it's a matter of who's paying for it and how much did we pay fo ! it and again, does it really count? I think a lot of the design elements that Target's put in are real nice and I'm comfortable. I like the fron elevations. I still think that breaking up the parking lot with a green strip, a green sidewalk would have helped break up the parking lot. I'm not convinced we need to add green space to the south. That doesn't count. A strip down the center I think would break it up a little bit and I like that idea and I still feel it's important. When you talk about a PUD, you try to connect everything and I don't know that we've really done a good job of connecting. You can get there. And I think somebody could come back and say, well people aren't going to walk anyway. They'll use their car. That's probably the truth. But again, the green strip in my mind going down the center of the lot, that maybe had a sidewalk, would break up that massive parking lot. Big chunk of II property. In terms of the elevation, I haven't heard anybody else concerned about the elevation. I think everybody's saying that the roof line has done it. I'm not convinced it has but it's tough to sink what I'm looking at here again back with what, we're looking at a little bit II different things. I think I would too like to see something breaking it up in the wintertime and I heard our consultant in terms of what an evergreen would do with the salt spray and I know that's the case. They' be dead but still we have to break that north up. The north elevation u and I think I'd like to challenge them to figure out how to do that. I thought there might be other ways to break that elevation up but they're, all expensive ways. So I guess the bottom line is, we've done something where this is Chanhassen's, this is the major downtown tenant of Chanhassen and I guess I still think there's something missing from that view. I think everything else is pretty good. I like all the other things that I've seen about Target coming in. Batzli: Give me a for instance. How would you do it? ' Conrad: How would I do it? Batzli: Yeah. ' Conrad: Well I think, there's some what I say are probably costly thing and I probably would have put a little bit, I don't have a real good solution. Especially when you think that there's going to be a communit area across the street on 78th. At first I wanted a big plaza there. A people plaza. Friendly. I didn't want a parking lot for employees on West 78th. Even if they took it off the blueprints, that would have mad me happier. I just don't like to see employee parking. Usually you hide employee parking. You put it away someplace. You let your real people, your customers take the higher visibility type of parking areas. I woul� have made that, and I'm not sure the connection to Mr. 8urdick's property is important but I understand why they're doing it. That never made a whole lot of sense to me and I would have used that as a green space are I think and it's probably impractical and it's probably something that HRA would have to fund. Probably whatever I'm saying is a financial impact on the HRA. But what I was saying before was that, you've got toll 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 35 put it in light of what's happening across the street when you've got a little bit of an area for people so then why do we need another plaza right by Target. So that sort of takes the wind out of that idea. I'm not totally sure what would do it right now. The broken, I guess the only thing that I see on this elevation, the roof line hasn't been broken • and that to me, that's what we did on Market Square. We broke the roof 1 line. We paid for it but we broke the roof line. On this elevation we haven't and so it's still, we've done some things that are kind of cosmetic but it's still flat line. And that would be my only other 11 comment on that. Batzli: Thank you. Tim. Erhart: Well it's obviously not going to follow my recommendation from last meeting and move the entrance to the corner or have two entrances. One facing west and one facing south right at the corner. So combined ' with moving the parking lot way off to the west end and so the north parking lot could also be customer parking lot so I guess I won't go on that anymore. But I will try to answer your question because I think while we've made some improvement to the north side, I think we can go a little bit further following the theme that's been outlined here. Specifically what I would like to see is to add one more of what you call a facade punch out so there are four evenly distributed there and then to ' take those and make the inside of it or the area between the two columns appear as a window display area. Now it may not have to be real glass. It mFy not have displays but to give it a different, if it's just more ' block behind that, or tile behind that, I just don't think it's going to be viewed as breaking up the building. Yeah, there's going to be some corners and angles and a slanted roofline but I think the way to really ' make it work is to put glass back in there and maybe back light that. Batzli: But in the section they showed us, if you're up on the road, or on the sidewalk, you're not going to be able to, you're not going to get. Krauss: The bottom one there. That's the view from up on the road. 1 Aanenson: There's another one that's a better one. It shows the retaining wall. You can't see most of that parking lot. Erhart: What are you saying? Batzli: I don't know that what you're proposing would help. It depends on who you're trying to break up the view for. If you're trying to break up for people in the employee parking lot, I think you're remarks would be. 1 Erhart: People on West 78th Street. He asks me what I'd do and now he argues with me. Okay, I'm not going to tell what I'd do after this one. Batzli: I just don't know if you have stuff down here, windows or whatever, if you're even going to be able to see it from up here. I liked Ladd's idea of breaking up, because that's what you're going to be able to see. For years until these trees do something and this is actually a had view. This is the one that probably actually... 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 36 Erhart: Well I'm not convinced that the jagged roof line is going to give you much of an improvement. I think the problem is that, well yeah. We'll make you Chairman again. My view is to see a 300 foot wall of block and I guess to me.it's not the roof line so much. You know trees are only going to have leaves 5 months out of the year. Greenhouse effect keeps going the way it is, it'll only be 4 months of the year. II Farmakes: So you're talking about reflective glass or display? Erhart: Something. Something that it's not block or tile behind there" I just don't think, some different color or something. I think it's an improvement to volunteer to make the second and third like the first one but as you pointed out, now you're going to make all three such that thel back wall is actually further back. Margaret Fleck: ...what you're referring to these masses. Erhart: Yeah. Yeah, what's in the back of those masses? Margaret Fleck: The back or the darker color we tried to push it back I even further. Erhart: But it's still block or tile. Same material that's on the rest' of the building. Margaret Fleck: Correct. Erhart: Yeah, and I'm just saying that it would look better if you woul make that glass or baked enamel steel or something that would even make it look more like a little bit like a storefront. It's a great improvement to make... Margaret Fleck: We've already dropped it, and you really do have a change in your plane and as far as, I mean we might be able to go to th lighter color here which will pull it down even further. My concern wit putting another material in there is glass, it's going to be...glass th breaks very quickly. It's not going to be vandal proof. There's going to be a lot of maintenance costs with that. We could go to possibly a polished tile that for three masses or four masses is going to, we're really touched immediately. The lighter color, maybe even going to a II smooth block rather than a rock faced block which would give you a different surface. Erhart: I'm not an architect but I'm just giving you some general. , Margaret Fleck: At the same time, there is a great deal of...so you're getting a great deal. ' Erhart: Well it's certainly an improvement over the other two, the way they're drawn. And I think if we just carry it one step further and get that material on that back wall that's substantially different than the , rest of the building, would probably do it. And again I'd put one more in there and make them equally spaced. You already have, what is that a emergency exit door and an employee entrance door. 1 i Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 37 Margaret Fleck: We trees and...even numbers. That's why we stayed with the three. Five would be crowding the elevation. Erhart: Oh, I think five would be crowding. Margaret Fleck: And the number three really works better for breaking up the... If you start putting a fourth on here it's going to even it up, and the masses don't have any effect whatsoever. There's really a big difference with a person picking up their perception on that. Erhart: I can't see that. Those are my points with regard to that. Margaret Fleck: The other comment that was made was the actual consistency of the parapet height. We could...height area but again that's tricky with avoiding the visual of avoiding the rooftop units. We could raise the parapet greater but at 26'8" I have a tendency not to ' want to do that any more than you're already there. 26 foot height is... And again, on this side perhaps they could do that. I'm a little uncomfortable...in this direction that works to actually use masses on these portions a great deal already... Ledvina: Could you raise the facade punch outs and have that metal roof portion above the top of the building line? Margaret Fleck: We could lift it up so that it slightly projected above it but I wouldn't recommend it being brought even with that because again then you're bringing your mass up to the height of the other and you're not getting your variation. You really aren't getting your variation and you're getting a variation of your metal roof. Where here you needed a variation in your height itself. Farmakes: What if you had a softer scattering effect? ' Margaret Fleck: It really does work better for terminating this as working with it. Massing wise we played with it up higher, medium and this works the best as far as aesthetically being balanced. ' Farmakes: What if you had a softening effect on the areas on either side of, you're referring to them as parapets? Batzli: Yeah, masses. Margaret Fleck: These masses? Farmakes: Yeah. Now go a little more to the, inbetween there. Yeah. Up above there you have some shadowing that's caused by the curving of the block. Falsify that so you break up those masses with some shadowing. Margaret Fleck: You're saying change the surfacing here? Farmakes: I'm talking about the visual effect when they're talking about along 78th. If there's wide expanses of block. Flat block. Is there a way that, what you're done on the front is quite nice where you've broken 11 up the shading with the curving of the block. Is there a way to falsify 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 38 11 that either, if not the whole building, partial so you have some shadow play on those wide, flat expanses? II Margaret Fleck: Right.• You've already got shadow plays in here. Farmakes: I understand that. It's the area inbetween. As I'm looking ' at the one on the front. Margaret Fleck: The curving ends up causing a great deal of projection II out. We don't have a great deal of area over in there to be playing with. The 4 foot was the maximum projection. These curves are, you'd have to follow through with an 8 foot radius. It gets to be very II difficult. Again I can add another one of these but that's about the best I can do. Farmakes: What is the project of, I don't have the. 1 Margaret Fleck: 4 foot. But again, I'm concerned about the balance of that as far as four of these getting... I can certainly shift this over and break it up that way. But I believe very strongly that there was a , very careful look at. Conrad: ...boring though. As much as you've tried to break it up, it'll still. And a little bit of that is because we don't have landscaping projected in there. But on the other hand, we're not going to have the landscaping, it's going to take quite a while until that landscaping really starts breaking up this side of the building. II Erhart: I think Jeff was onto something. It's too bad you couldn't add those curves in there. But those require a minimum of 8 foot difference, Why did you put the curves on the west side of the building? Margaret Fleck: Those are pretty much standard... 1 Erhart: Making that center one wider might do something for you. Making it a triple column mass. 1 Margaret Fleck: That's a possibility. Erhart: Yeah, that might do it. 1 Margaret Fleck: Bringing this out...give you some variation...but we'll work with that. You know I hear what you're saying, that you're feeling!' it's boring and largely because of this flat surface. I hoped that the perspective could give you some of the... I also would prefer to call it, subtle and strong statement. It's not truly a boring building. 1 Erhart: Oh, I didn't say that. Margaret Fleck: But it's also not, we're not trying to be zooby. We're trying to be pretty subtle about our building. We want it to look stabl and strong. We want it to be something that over the next 20 -30 years, we don't have to do a lot of changes to and it doesn't look out dated in l your Chanhassen area, which I'm sure you can think of buildings that II Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 39 have. Or do. I think it's a strong statement and I think it will last as well as anything...buildings do. Farmakes: What if that last one was just shifted over more? Do you find that area on the far right by the entrance where they're closer together, do you find that less offensive than the one to the left that's a farther ' expanse? First of all there's trees in there so this... Erhart: Can you break it up with clumps of evergreen trees planted right next to the building? Margaret Fleck: No we can't because we show sidewalks being...fire and there's already overhangs approximately in that area. There's pretty limited space when you're talking about that sidewalk over on the side. Erhart: Right on the end, on the east end there. In fact you've shown I think, well you've shown shurbs there but you could cut the length, right by your hand there. One down, right there. Up one. That end of the building, you could cover up that end with evergreens and make the building look shorter. And then move that one mass over a bit. Farmakes: My eye goes to that open area between those two. But not so much to the one to the right. So if they moved that over a little bit, then you saw a little bit up above the site like, or the roof line. Margaret Fleck: ...what you're talking about this point in here? 1 Erhart: Yeah, in other words take what you're got room for landscaped there and really make that mass really dense evergreens. The building 1 looks shorter. That will make the building look shorter. Margaret Fleck: Yeah, I definitely believe that needs to shift over... Erhart: Right, and then move that one over. Is that what we're saying? Margaret Fleck: And then shift this one over and cross double this one... We can certainly can work with that. Conrad: Let me ask the Planning Commission something. We're all, and I have no idea... We've got trees to the south that are blocking the highway vision of the back of the building. Do we want to rob from those trees? Do we want to rob from that property? I have no idea how we do that. I know the agreements are in there but it probably means cutting down trees there. And that footage to the 78th Street side, so you can create a green, more of a green belt. Erhart: You're talking about moving the building back? Conrad: I'm saying moving the building back. Batzli: No. Farmakes: I think by a slight shifting you'd get the effect. If you raised those up so it broke the roof line coupled with the trees, you'd 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 40 get more of a storefront type look to that. Break it up quite a bit. And it's deceptive to look at it because it's all opened up. There are II no trees sitting there. There will be. Margaret Fleck: It's also very deceptive to look at a full elevation ar� think you're ever going to see it that way...especially from the depth you have in here and sidewalk. When you're visually standing here... you're going to see an expanse of about 100 feet is your angle of vision and maybe you'd turn and look all the way across this but it's going to... Farmakes: If you broke the roofline, the outcropping roof, how, did youll look at that at all? Margaret Fleck: I'm real relunctant to do that. Partially because it means that I would have to have an absolute... 11 Farmakes: I'm talking about playing with the roof line. I'm talking the roof elements that you have and the part that sticks out. You're talkie' about sticking those up above the roof line? Margaret Fleck: I do really not recommend that because one, it just doesn't balance properly... It's just not my desire to avoid doing that The idea that you're looking for something to break it up and give it some scale in the residential motiff. This gives a motiff of about... It just doesn't give you any benefit. It causes you greater height. 1 Farmakes: I guess what you're sort of competing with here I think is sort of a mind set. We still think of ourselves as a small town. We're. not but we think of ourselves that way. We keep on gravitating to the II old small town where you have an irregular roofline. You don't have the long straight line. And to a certain extent I agree with you. Margaret Fleck: Well we're giving you an irregular roofline. It's just you guys are concentrating on the back line behind. Farmakes: Well anytime that you get a long expanse of a linear line around here, people get uncomfortable. And as was said before, you're a big fish in a small pond. , Margaret Fleck: Something we could play with is just a very minimal change to not only the beveling, or the corbelling up but possibly one single row of block and playing around with it and taking it out but it II wouldn't be extreme again. It's not something that's going to be...but even in your small town building, like a two story motel, you don't get much of... 1 Erhart: Okay, thanks. One last thing. Like Jeff, someone who drives back and forth between the industrial park and downtown 3 times a day, I much prefer the southern route of West 78th Street. 1 never could quite understand why we were making such a break to the north other than at the time the argument was that the stacking distance was required. Now apparently, how are we resolving that? I prefer the southern route. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 41 Krauss: The currently illustrated one. Erhart: Okay, that's it. Batzli: I have a couple of things for Kate and Charles. We have some easements here on our first motion and I thought that we needed an easement to the NURP pond, etc. Do we have that in the conditions somewhere? Folch: That's correct. It's the easement for the pond's already shown on the plan. Batzli: So these are in addition to the ones shown on the plan? The ones we've got right here then in condition 1. Folch: That's correct. We've got our NURP pond to get any sediment and stuff coming out of the parking lot. Batzli: Where's the water draining off the roof? Do we know? Fran Hagen: Yeah, three access points on the back of the building. It all drains to the back of the building and it's all piped out. It's not spillways. It's all piped in three locations. Basically up in this. The exact location is yet to be worked out based on this. It will either be three or two piped directly right into the storm sewer system. The utility plan currently shows the storm sewer line coming along this side and coming down here and then they'll get into the pond. Batzli: Is the roof of the building a gravel /asphalt kind of thing? 1 Fran Hagen: I'm sure that that's... ' Batzli: In our experience with these kinds of buildings, do we get any sort of oil or anything draining off these roofs? Do you know. Krauss: No. Batzli: No we don't have any? We don't have any problem with the storm water. r Krauss: You see an oily sheen on every sidewalk after the rain, no. That doesn't happen. Once the thing is dry, it adheres. Batzli: Okay. 5o we don't need any kind of skimmer or anything else for what's coming off the roof? Krauss: Well we're probably going to have a skimmer on the pond. Batzli: On the pond. I'm talking about our drainage off the roof. Krauss: Well but everything is going to go into this pond so it's all going to be going through the skimmer before discharged. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 September 16, 1992 - Page 42 II Batzli: It's discharged from our storm water into the pond project. You're going from the back of the building, around the building into thell pond. • Fran Hagen: Correct... This parking lot has a storm sewer...The parkin"' lot drainage would come in at this portion in right about the middle... Highway 5 and there will be a skimmer on that also...I think that's what you're looking for with the oil. lli Batzli: Right. When we say there's only two fast food restaurants, are we counting the one inside the Target? Krauss: No. 1 Batzli: Okay. The submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm water, sewer, sanitary sewer, etc., condition 11. Haven', they already done that? Aanenson: They may have done that, you're correct. That was mine in II addition to Charles' so if Charles feels comfortable that they've met that, then you can stike that. Batzli: I mean are we expecting more? ' Folch: Well we'll be getting a. Batzli: Or this apply to Outlot B I guess as well eventually, does it I not? These conditions. Aanenson: Yes. It's for the entire. II Batzli: So we don't have everything for Outlot B so this is a good II condition to have here? Folch: Yeah, and from the standpoint that the applicant has submitted between conceptual and this stage here, the actual construction plans fo the public improvements so that's another basic set of documents which w approved. Review and approve. But that has been submitted. We've sent drawings back so that will also be a part of the final process. So I 11 would say, we need. Aanenson: Well, except it applies to the whole PUD so you're right in that respect. Target's met that but it could apply to the Outlot B too., Or Mr. Burdick's property too. Batzli: The site plan, number 14. Site plan shall be consistent overall' impervious surface coverage. Does that mean that we're approving the impervious coverage that's above what we normally require? Aanenson: For that site but we're taking the whole balance meets, is II underneath the 63. Krauss: What you're doing is the gross hard surface coverage is going t be well under the PUD standard. But to achieve that as sites are brough II i Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 43 in on Outlot A, we don't want them to exceed the total that they've committed to. So it's something that you're going to have to review and cumulatively add up as each site plan comes in. Emmings: You just said Outlot A. You meant B. Krauss: B. Batzli: Okay. So in other words, future site plans for development will be consistent. Krauss: Yeah. 11 Batzli: Okay. What I would like to see regarding the sidewalk issue is, I would like to see some sort of sidewalk. I'd also like to see a requirement that there be stop signs and a huge crosswalk in front similar to what they've done at the Cub store in Minnetonka. Stop signs on either side of the entrance. Big crosswalk. Krauss: Oh yes, okay. The Cub does that regularly. I know what you mean. Batzli: Yeah. I would like to see some sort of pedestrian, I mean we've done a lot of work on a lot of things but one thing they haven't done anything on, in my opinion is handling people within the site, unless you count walking up and down the aisles between parked cars handling people. Maybe that's not important to us. Maybe we don't care. Maybe we're trying to get people to walk or not walk from store to store. But the whole concept of our downtown I thought was to avoid having a group of little mini -malls next to each other that you get in your car and drive and it's supposed to be conducive to walking. I don't see that we've made this conducive to walking at all. Aanenson: I did leave it as a condition. So it's in there as a condition even though it's not reflected on the site plan. 11 Batzli: Yeah, well but the applicant is saying they're not going to do it. And we haven't really talked about it much other than we're saying yeah, we like it. r Aanenson: I said they have to do it. That's in the conditions so we're expecting, before we sign off on it, that be shown on the site plan. Unless you take it off. Batzli: Well yeah, I know. Pedestrian access, I mean I can meet your condition by putting in a 6 foot sidewalk from the edge of their parking 11 lot to the outlot and I've met your condition. Aanenson: Right. Batzli: And I don't think that we handle the people. I don't think they handle the people from the sidewalk up on 78th Street to the front of their building very well. And I don't think they've handled the people through the parking lot. And I imagine, what I'd really like to have 1 Planning Commission Meeting II Septem er 16, 1992 - Page 44 II them do also is put some, a little cart racks in their parking lot. They're probably going to lose parking spaces though so they can't do that but I always crash into their carts in the parking lot. But anyway, I'm very cynical that this thing is hidden. I think we've hidden a wall that deserves to be hidden. I don't think we've hidden them. I noticed quite cynically that they haven't put any landscaping to the southwest II and they thought of a very good excuse not to have to do that. Since nobody else complained about it, I won't complain too much but we have a very broad expanse there where they're highly visible. They are a big building. They have a huge parking lot. We're up above grade a little bit there from the highway and that concerns me. People are going to se them. Aanenson: Where the retention pond is? Where we want to get access to. Batzli: Yeah. The retention pond. So there's not much landscaping between the corner of the, southwest corner of the building all the way II out past the retention pond area. Aanenson: In here? II Batzli: Yeah. There's no landscaping as far as I can tell. I'd like to see, as part of them looking at the northern part of the building, I guess I'd like to see them maybe try and throw some more evergreens into the employee parking. I think they've only got four of them in there. And that may help also but if we're going to play around with i as a whole unit of looking at those masses and looking at the trees and from the sounds of it, they're willing to look at that and juggle it a little bit more. So I don't know if we can say much more about that. None of us has really spoken about the request we had to delay the grading until October so they can get their pumpkins out. I don't know II how anybody else feels about that. Emmings: Well, if he's got a crop in and he's got a lease, my II recollection of that is, once you put a crop in, you've got a right to take it out and that'd be a private matter between him and Mr. Burdick. If he doesn't get his crop out, he's going to, whoever takes it away frog him is going to owe him for it. Batzli: The lighting policy of the parking lot and things like that, II we've in the past, it seems to me, required people, gas stations and such, to not have their signs lit after certain hours or things like that. Do we have any control over that here? Do we care? Do we want , them to light their whole parking lot all night long? Have we talked about that with them? Aanenson: It's my understanding that they put in their narrative that they do have timers on some of those and if you want to be more specific, we can put that in. Batzli: I don't know, one of the comments by our concerned citizens wail that we avoid putting too much light in our downtown area. The thing that I saw was a limitation on the strength of the light at the edge of 1/ the property. Not a curtailed, you know for security purposes, I don't II Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 45 have a problem with them lighting things that have to be lit. I also understand there will probably be people working at night to restock. I don't know exactly what their policy is but I don't want to make it unsafe environment for those people coming in and out from the employee parking lot or so that vandals start spray painting the side of their building or something. But I would, I don't know that they need to light ' their whole parking lot and I don't know if that's addressed. And I don't know if it needs to be addressed or if Target has a policy that they do or don't do it. I don't know. Ranenson: Sufficient lighting for security. Batzli: Paul, on these types of conditions, do we normally tie any of them together? Krauss: Mr. Chairman, in this case it's, I mean normally we do yes but ' this, everything is being packaged up into a unitary PUD contract in this case. It will be taken care of. Batzli: Trust me. Okay. I like what they've done on the north side of the building so far. I think if they do a little bit more, I think all of us are going to be pretty pleased with the results, or I sure hope so. I think they're going to be a good addition to the city. My last comment was on the Mr. James' concern about closing the right -in /right -out. I think that would be detrimental to Outlot B but on the other hand, he does need access to his property to the north and if we're lowering the grade of the road at the main entrance to the Target, does that in fact make it too steep to get into his property? Do you know Charles? Folch: If the north, if Mr. James' property is left at it's current elevation, yes. It would make it too steep. Some sort of modification, either to the elevation or to the access location would need to be looked at. Batzli: Don ' t we want intersections that are directly across from one another? Folch: That certainly helps to concentrate them that way. You can coordinate and control them with traffic control devices, yeah. Batzli: But if we go any steeper at the entrance to the Target, do we have a problem with ice in the winter or people not being able to make that grade at the traffic light if they stopped at the light and then trying to get going again? Is that the concern? Folch: Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. We wouldn't, from staff's point of view, we wouldn't want to see the entrance into the Target site any steeper than it is now. Now would we want to see it potentially any steeper into the James property. On the north side. So we're hoping that this issue can somehow be resolved between the two property owners and /or with our help in any way that we can do that but we're certainly hopeful that the property owners can work this fill elevation situation between themselves here. 11 11 Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 16, 1992 - Page 46 Batzli: But with the current way we're going to develop 78th Street, with the improvements, are we making the problem worse to get into his property? Are we lowering it right now? 1 Folch: The current plans would lower the road about a foot and a half and I believe the Target proposal is looking to lower it another foot an a half so a total of about a 3 foot difference. Batzli: Okay, but right now on the plans it's a foot and a half. Folch: That's correct. 1 Batzli: Does that make it a problem to get into Mr. James' property? Folch: I don't know. I guess I'd have to ask Mr. James. If his engineer has responded to that or not. That was the plans that, that is based on the plans that we've had on the table for about a year and a II half and it hasn't been until this proposal has come up that I've heard that it was a problem. Batzli: Okay. Those are my comments. If there's any other discussion II or a motion. Conrad: I just have another comment. What's our sign ordinance say in terms of signage on a building? How many wall signs can we have? Aanenson: What we're recommending for this one is they have one pylon sign. We said a maximum of free standing sign, maximum 36 feet in height. And then they'll have one, low profile sign 8 feet in height and they'll have one wall sign facing Powers Boulevard. 1 Conrad: What could they, based on our sign ordinance? Aanenson: Have an additional wall sign on the West 78th. , Conrad: I keep looking at the 78th Street side and nobody, my impression is nobody lives here and it's like I'd like to have a signature. Batzli: You mean like a Target sign? Conrad: Yeah. I don't think I've ever asked for more signage but 1 again, I guess I'm still struggling to make the 78th Street side friendlier. And maybe the pylon sign will help do that. Or the monument sign. I don't know. 1 Batzli: Where's the monument sign go on there? Aanenson: I was just informed that they also want to put a pharmacy 1 sign. Batzli: They want to put a who? 1 Aanenson: A pharmacy sign. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 47 11 Margaret Fleck: It's 2 foot high and 20 feet wide. Batzli: Where do you put that, on the front of the building? Margaret Fleck: On the front of the building, right in here. Batzli: So you go in the emergency doors to get there? Margaret Fleck: Well no, you don't go in the emergency doors but that's advertising and it just happens to be located in that module. Batzli: I'm just being silly, I'm sorry. I/ Farmakes: Wouldn't that be inconsistent with what we do? Aanenson: Pardon me? Farmakes: That'd be inconsistent with what we do? Aanenson: Well we say 15% of the wall area. Farmakes: That's advertising...instead of the name of the retail operation. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of putting hot dogs or a cold beer? Emmings: What kind of hot dogs? Farmakes: I guess I've never found signage to ever make a building more friendly. Conrad: But Jeff you wouldn't like to see the 78th Street side? Farmakes: It might be more informative but I don't know if it would make it more friendly. So I agree with some of what you're saying. I don't know if it's a positive versus. We're trying to make it look nicer. I guess another tree might be, get my vote versus another sign. Batzli: Does the Ridgedale store have a sign on the north side of the building? It does doesn't it? Sort of a rectangular one. i Krauss: It faces Highway 12, yeah. Farmakes: The one thing that worries me about putting superfulous signage on a building like that is you obviously stock a lot of different things. And it's pretty common knowledge of what's in a Target. ' Margaret Fleck: A pharmacy's unusual for the Target. Farmakes: All the ones I've been to have had pharmacies. Margaret Fleck: Only in Minnesota and it is a necessary. In fact, not all the stores in Minnesota will necessarily have them. Smaller markets do not have them. Planning Commission Meeting , September 16, 1992 - Page 48 Farmakes: You're seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this Target? Margaret Fleck: Pardon? 1 Farmakes: You're seeing the drive in farther than Minnesota for this II Target? Margaret Fleck: No, but it's just to our advantage. Pharmacy is a fairly unique thing to have in that store. Farmakes: I'd be against any additional signage at all. Batzli: Is there a motion? 1 Erhart: Is this number 22 conditions on the first one. Does anybody 11 have any changes other than the time? I mean we talked about a lot of ideas here. Emmings: Yeah, to add the easement is 1(e). 1 Erhart: Is 1(e)? Emmings: Yeah. 1 Erhart: Can you make the motion? Emmings: Yeah, I can. I'll move the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres of general business to PUD and preliminary plat approval as shown on PUD #92 -5 subject to the condition" in the staff report with the addition of a condition that will be 1(e). Those would be cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target parcel and Outlot B on the one hand and the Target parcel and the Burdic property to the east of the Target building on the other hand. And as long as it's my motion, I'm going to say that, I'm going to change number 12 so there are no fast food restaurants permitted in Outlot B. Now that's the end of my motion. Batzli: Is there a second? Erhart: Help me. Your problem with fast food restaurants are, is it thi food? Emmings: No, no. I go to them and I don't mind them. I'll tell you t where I think they belong is right back there on Monterey behind the Target building. In fact I've advocated that for years that that be a strip of fast food restaurants. This is one of the most prominent sites" in Chanhassen and I wouldn't even care if they had some fast food restaurants if we can mess around with the design of the building a little bit. I'd like not to see drive thru's. I don't mind fast food. II wouldn't mind a fast food restaurant out there like an Arby's. Conrad: What do you want there? Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 49 11 Emmings: I don't want to see a Target and I don't want to see a Burger King. 1 Erhart: You want close architectural review of those? Krauss: You have that. They're going to have to be built. Emmings: Here's my problem. You can argue with me all you want. I'm not going to change what I said. You can vote it down. If you say there's a maximum of two fast food restaurants, there will be two fast food restaurants. I'm sure of it. Erhart: You don't care as long as you have strong architectural review. Emmings: Yeah, and I might not want it then too. But other than that I could be talked into, an Arby's that was built right, even a McDonald's that was built right. I don't know about drive thru but this is such a prominent site, all traffic from the west, this is the first thing they see of downtown Chanhassen and I sure don't want to look at an ugly buildings. And most of those buildings are not the kind of thing I'd want to see out on that corner. So that's my reservation. I don't mind fast food restaurants. Erhart: Maybe item 12 ought to, instead of dealing with fast food, the term fast food restaurants at all, maybe item 12 ought to deal with architectural review of those restaurants in Outlot B. Aanenson: We have that in there. That's already in there. Erhart: Maybe you should just strike 12. Emmings: Yeah, that'd be fine with me. Just take 12 out. Krauss: I should tell you that 12 is already written into the purchase agreement between the HRA and the. Erhart: But there's a little bit of implication there that McDonald's could come in with their standard design. Krauss: No. There's no question they can't. Aanenson: No, we changed the zone. Krauss: I guess, we took, when we drafted up these original agreements, we put the expectation that if nothing was done the probability would be all 4 or 5 or 6, depending on which plan you had, were going to be fast 11 food. And came it from the standpoint that 2, while we felt it was reasonable, could well be perceived as being pretty onerous for the developer but we felt that that was consistent with the quality of development that we wanted to see there. Farmakes: So there potentially would be a total of 6 signage. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 September 16, 1992 - Page 50 1 Emmings: Well why are we asked to pass a condition that's already part of another agreement? I mean this is just * *. Krauss: Well, you modify your, I mean the HRA condition is a part of , well the HRA authorized the purchase of the property from Mr. Burdick an the resale to Ryan and to do that, there were sets of conditions like everything is going to be done as a PUD so you can review it that way. Things are going to be architecturally similar and consistent with downtown. Just general terms so there's something to hang the development on. And in doing that again, we threw in the thing about di fast foods and we approached it from the completely opposite end. Is that again we had an expectation that if we did, weren't up front about this, we would wind up with all the outlots being fast food. 1 Emmings: Well I take it we don't have to worry about that because it is a PUD and we can control that? Krauss: As long as there are appropriate conditions in there, yeah. Emmings: Well, now that just confuses me / because if it's already, is iti already a condition? Batzli: Does that condition run with the land? They can't do it anyway no matter what we put in this? Krauss: That they can't. 1 Emmings: It seems to me that's all written. Krauss: You can probably further limit it. I mean I supposed you could further limit it. You couldn't allow 6 is what. Emmings: Well, I don't know. If this isn't in here, what posture are w� on? Krauss: Well. Emmings: Or let me ask another question Paul. I told you what my concern is. Is the prominence of the site and I don't want to see standard buildings there but you're telling me we've got lots of architectural control over it. If McDonald's comes in and says we want II ours right out on the corner, are you telling me we'll be able to tell them you're going to have to build it to look like all our other buildings in downtown? Krauss: Yeah. Aanenson: We said, they all have to have pitched roofs, etc, etc.. All the standards that we just built in this whole PUD. Emmings: And no arches? Or little ones. Or little ones with pitched 11 roofs on them. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 51 Krauss: You have the latitude to do whatever you want within reason with the architecture and we fully expect and it's written into here that it 11 means that when Hardee's comes up with orange building 37, you say go to South Dakota. You're going to build it, and frankly most of the fast food operations these days are sophisticated enough to know that they build to the style that's being requested. And we wanted to lay out 11 enough parameters so they know what we were looking for. Emmings: Could we tell them if you want to have people come in and sit down and eat or come in and take out, that's fine but you're not going to have drive thru. Could we do that? I/ Krauss: Theoretically you could do that but the business is such that the drive thru is the business and they go hand in hand. Farmakes: How do we define like let's say a Bakers Square? They have drive thru for some food items. Is that defined as a fast food? Krauss: The issues are blurring but Bakers Square serves through waiter service. At tables and that's their primary. Farmakes: So that's how it's defined then? 11 Krauss: That's a standard restaurant and we do, the ordinance does define the difference between standard and I believe they call it convenience food restaurants. Farmakes: Where you could still have a drive thru if you have waiters? Krauss: Presumably. Erhart: I don't think there's any harm in making item 12, that all future buildings will meet some kind of architectural standards and we don't know what they are today but. t � Aanenson: That's what they are right here. We spelled them all out. The colors that you can use. The screening. The lanscaping. Everything. The lighting. It's all spelled out for this whole development. Emmings: 15. That applies to everything that's in this one applies to everything that goes into the PUD. Even off the part, even on the Burdick part. So maybe it's alright. 11 Erhart: Well, it's your motion. I'm just trying to. Emmings: Okay, well maybe I'm over reacting a little bit here. What do I do now? I made my motion. Batzli: No one seconded it yet. Your motion is dying on the vine. Emmings: I don't know. Conrad: Just withdraw it. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 52 Emmings: I'll withdraw my motion. Thank you Ladd. Batzli: I'm sorry, did you amend your motion at all? Emmings: I withdrew it. Batzli: You withdrew it? Emmings: If you'd pay attention. Batzli: We were trying to correct another informality here. Another condition you had totally ignored. Farmakes: ...train of thought when you were crescendoing. Sorry. Erhart: Okay, I'll make a motion that's exactly the same as Steve's motion but leave item 12 in as is. Change item 20 to read, concrete. That's it. Any second? Emmings: Now wait a minute. Change 20 to read what? 1 Erhart: 8 foot concrete trail. Aanenson: Instead of asphalt you want concrete? Erhart: Is that what you want Jeff? Farmakes: Pardon? Erhart: Isn't that what you want, concrete trail? 1 Emmings: But isn't concrete harder to maintain than asphalt? Farmakes: I'll tell you, I've lived next to, I think the only bituminou trail in Chanhassen and it's a disaster. It's now grown over along with the beer cans, the old socks. Erhart: This is essentially, this is going to utlimately be a sidewalk isn't it? Krauss: When we say bituminous, we mean paved with asphalt. , Farmakes: It was described to me as a bituminous trail that is, when I il was involved with the Park Commission, bituminous trail is a chip trail. Erhart: Oh no, no. Batzli: Asphalt. Farmakes: Okay. ' Erhart: Leave 20 as is. Call for a second. Farmakes: I'll second it. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 53 Batzli: Discussion. Farmakes: Can I add one thing? Batzli: Go ahead. 11 Farmakes: On 17, is the site, should that be outlot site? Or it just says site. It doesn't say building site. 11 Aanenson: Each parcel. Each separate parcel. There's four parcels in those outlot. Batzli: Well, do we know there's four parcels in the Outlot? Aanenson: We don't know. As long as they can meet the standards. 11 Krauss: Well no, I think though Commissioner Farmakes is correct. The intent was that there be, are you talking about the pylon? Oh no, that's correct. I'm sorry. Batzli: What's a site? Krauss: Each parcel. Aanenson: Yeah, I think parcel would be a better way. Batzli: So currently there's one outlot. Aanenson: We're not talking about the outlot. We're calling the individuals parcels within. The four, if it's four. Farmakes: Okay, it says each site and in the same sentence it says, into the private site. Is that delineating that there's a difference between 11 a private site and a site? Aanenson: No. Same thing. Batzli: I'm confused. What four sites are you talking about? Krauss: The conceptually illustrated ones on the outlot. Batzli: 5o we're approving those today? We're not approving those? Aanenson: No, no, no. Krauss: You've approving the development concept, the layout of how that 1 thing's supposed to work. Batzli: I thought you told us we didn't have to worry about that Paul. Krauss: Well what I told you is that, if the roadway changes, we have to bring that back to you. As each development comes in, you will be looking to review the site plan on each individual one. But we need a framework to hang it on and that framework is where should the road go, 11 Planning Commission Meeting II September 16, 1992 - Page 54 and that may be modified. An what f y d t kind of, architectually what kind of context it is and lighting scheme and that kind of stuff. II Batzli: The road into the outlot we're approving tonight. We're approving the concept that there's four sites within the outlot. Is that all we're approving? 1 Krauss: That's right. That's it. Batzli: Is there a condition that says that somewhere? 1 Krauss: It's on the plan. • Aanenson: We've approving the plans, as they're shown. II Batzli: Well on the plans there's buildings. Proposed building pads 1 christ sake. Krauss: That you're not but the basic layout, yes. II Batzli: I hear a lot of, don't worry about it but I'm worried. Farmakes: Does this signage that's worked out, four pylon signs. Four" wall signs. Krauss: Two pylon signs. II Farmakes: Two pylon signs. Okay, so the site refers to Outlot A and B? Krauss: No. 1 Farmakes: What? You've got me totally confused. Aanenson: 18 says, Target gets a free standing sign and the Outlot B II gets a free standing sign. What 17 says is, each site, if there's four, they each get a monument. If it's five, they each get a monument. What we've approving tonight is four. They're showing four proposed. Farmakes: Okay, so there's two pylon, four monuments and eight wall signs. Is that correct? 1 Aanenson: Correct. Farmakes: Excuse me, I'm leaving out the monument sign on Target and their wall sign. So add one to each on those. That's five and nine and two pylon signs. Emmings: I don't know that we're, we're approving two pylon signs. We'rII approving a monument sign for each site and then the rest of says, signs are subject to standards of the sign ordinance. So whatever. 1 Farmakes: I was just confused on the total. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? i II Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 55 Conrad: We spent 2 1/2 hours on this and the one change, what change did you make? Erhart: Item (e). Conrad: We've essentially done, okay. Everybody's comfortable with the traffic issue? And we haven't really told staff or anybody to do anything in terms of the 78th Street elevation. Batzli: I quite honestly don't think that staff knows what to do with it. Conrad: I just want to make sure everybody knows that we haven't said, with the motion that's there, we haven't said anything about traffic. Everybody's comfortable with traffic. Erhart: I don't think so but I don't think this motion has anything to do with traffic. Batzli: Traffic is going to be the site plan review. The next motion isn't it? Conrad: You're rezoning which means that you're rezoning it to a use 1 that generates traffic. I don't know if the site plan. Batzli: I don't know either. 11 Erhart: We want Target here. We like the site and we're going to have to deal with the street design and I agree. Maybe this traffic study needs to be reviewed. I'm not going to change the site plan for that. Emmings: They're telling us they've done the traffic study and that it works and I sure don't have any way to...with that. Erhart: All we can do is review it. Folch: Basically you're going to have both these projects tracking simultaneously. Outside of the grading work, which is proposed to be done this year, both projects are going to be occurring simultaneously for the most part next spring and summer. Aanenson: I think Brian may have a good point though. I think you could make a condition on number 8 that they, that under the site plan that, we added one already about a crosswalk but you wanted, so under site plan. 7 would be a crosswalk with stop signs in front of Target. Number 8 may be that these projects track together as Charles just mentioned. The West 78th detachment study and Target proceed together. Emmings: And that'd probably be the place too to Ladd, to talk about that north elevation. Because that site plan deals strictly with the Target. Conrad: Right. Absolutely, that is the plan. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting . September 16, 1992 - Page 56 I Batzli: The condition I guess I'd like to see added to this particular motion is that, condition 23. That our approval tonight is not an approval of Outlot B as depicted or development of Outlot B as depicted `. on the site plan other than to locate the road and the number of sites, limiting the number of sites to four. Aanenson: Do you want to add each site must come througth site plan review? Batzli: Yeah. Who seconded the motion? 1 • Emmings: Well, you're amending it. Erhart: Yeah, I agree with that. Emmings: You're going to amend your motion, I'll second that. 1 Batzli: It was a friendly amendment. Do you want us to actually vote on it? Emmings: You're the chair. Batzli: Okay, it was a friendly amendment and you guys both agree. 1 Okay, any more discussion? Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I preliminary approval to rezone 22.03 acres of BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat approval as shown in PUD #t92 -5, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plat easements needed: a. 20 foot wide utility easement over Lot 1 for public portion of II proposed watermain. b. 20 foot wide utility easement over existing 18 inch watermain 11 through Outlot B. c. 30 foot wide utility easement over proposed sanitary sewer through Lot 1. 1 d. 30 foot wide utility easement over existing 8 inch sanitary sewer through Lot 1 and Outlot B. 1 e. Cross easements for ingress and egress between the Target site and Outlot B to the east and between the Target site and the Burdick site to the west. 2. The 1992 edition of the City of Chanhassen's Standard Specifications for Construction shall govern construction of all public improvements. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required agency permits such as PCA, Health Department, Watershed District, etc. ' Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 57 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a share of the costs involved in constructing one or more traffic signals on West 78th Street between Kerber Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (appropriate cost - sharing formula has yet to be determined.) 11 5. If the West 78th Street detachment intersection with County Road 17 is to be shifted south, approvals will also be needed from MnDot and Carver County and the applicant would be responsible for performing all necessary soil corrections within the new roadway alignment. 6. Storm sewer plan shall be revised to reflect site plan for Outlot B. 7. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street. 8. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. 9. Compliance with the standards of the PUD zone outlined in the staff report. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development. Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and landscaping. 10. Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target. 11. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including store sewer, water and sanitary sewer. 12. Only two fast food restaurants are permitted. 13. Approval from MnDot, Carver County Traffic Engineer and the City shall be secured to relocate West 78th Street. 14. All site plan shall be consistent with the overall impervious surface coverage. 15. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through color block or panels. Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target store only. 16. All open spaces and non- parking lot surfaces /outlots shall be landscaped or covered with planting and /or lawn material. 17. Each site shall be allowed one monument sign near the driveway into the private site, walls signs on not more than 2 street frontages. 11 The signs are subject to the standards of the sign ordinance. 18. Target and Outlot B are each allowed one free standing pylon sign. 19. Lights shall be a shoe box fixture and light levels shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' September 16, 1992 - Page 58 20. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the entire length of West 78th Street. ' An 8 foot bituminous trail shall run the entire length of Powers Boulevard. 1 21. All development in•this zone is subject to all the standards of the PUD zone. 22. If the revised alignment for West 78th Street is not selected, a revised concept plan must be submitted for Outlot 6 for city approval within 30 days of the City Council's action on this request. 1 23. This approval is not an approval of the development of Outlot B as depicted on the site plan other than to locate the road and the II number of sites to four and each site must come througth site plan review. All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried wit" a vote of 5 to 1. Conrad: I don't believe the traffic issue on West 78th Street to the II east of Target has been resolved. Batzli: I'm sorry, on West 78th and to the east? Conrad: To the east of Target. Batzli: On Monterey? 1 Conrad: On West 78th. Batzli: Moving on we have a site plan review motion. Somebody want to 11 take a crack at that orle? I think we've perhaps got a condition 7. I don't remember, what was your condition 7? Aanenson: Crosswalk with stop signs in front of the store. Number 8 was, just track the completion of the West 78th detachment project. Batzli: So that would tie in with making sure there's access to the 1 James property? Erhart: 8 was what? ' Aanenson: Tracking this with the completion of West 78th, the street. S Target doesn't open before the street's there. Emmings: Well, should we also be tracking it with development of the James property at least insofar as we're sure we're not giving him, or II don't we have to consider this? At least in terms of access points. Krauss: That's going to have been resolved by the 28th. Batzli: Trust me. Krauss: Trust Charles on this. one. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 59 1 Folch: Yeah, if we get all the parties together on this, I think we can. Emmings: And then 9 was going to be, well whatever, the wall. The great wall of Chanhassen. Batzli: Number 9 is going to be the wall. Emmings: You've got to do this one Ladd. Batzli: He's going to oppose it again. He wants to get his little points on record. I can see it coming a mile away. Okay, anybody want to make a motion? Please. Conrad: Just a quick comment. On 5, the wall sign shall not exceed 15% of the wall face. Why do we have that in there? That's our standard anyway. Aanenson: Do you have the dimensions on that wall sign? We can just 11 plug those in if they have them already. Krauss: That would be preferable. Emmings: Well, shouldn't we be saying the wall signs won't be anything different than they appear on the plan? Aanenson: They're 6 foot x 34. We can put that number in. Emmings: Wall signage shall, well we should just take that out. The wall signs are on the plan. Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #92 -2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992 with the 6 • conditions as outlined in the staff report, with deletion of the last sentence in paragraph 5. And add condition number 7. That a crosswalk with stop signs will be added. Is that enough? Emmings: In front of the entrance? Erhart: In front of the entrance, yeah. Okay. Condition number 8. Tracking this with the Charlie James property. Is that? Aanenson: With the West 78th. Erhart: With the West 78th as Kate has worded. And number 9 is to review to improve the appearance of the north wall consistent with the comments and discussion at the meeting tonight. Emmings: I'll second that. I/ Batzli: Any discussion? Do we want them to review their or control the lighting policy of the parking lot? Or improve condition number 4. Is anybody else interested in doing that? Emmings: I guess not. 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' September 16, 1992 - Page 60 1 Batzli: Nope? Okay. It will be raised at Council again I guess. That's okay. It's kind of late in the game to raise it. I thought sine one of the Council persons got up and spoke on it, we might want to at least take a look at it. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #92 -2 as shown on the plans dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1 1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of the PUD #92 -5. 2. Pedestrian access be provided between Target parking lot and Outlot II B. A 6 foot sidewalk shall run the length of West 78th Street. 3. The three facades shown on West 78th Street shall have back lighting" 4. Lighting shall not exceed 1/2 foot candle at the property line. 5. Signage for the monument sign shall not exceed 8 feet in height with a 6' x 6' foot sign area and for the pylon sign, 36 feet in height and not exceed 144 square feet in sign area. The monument sign and 11 free standing sign shall be consistent with the plans submitted in the September 9, 1992 site plan. 6. The development shall comply with all development standards of this II PUD zone. 7_ A crosswalk with stop signs on either end will be added in front of II the Target entrance. 8. The Target and the West 78th Street Detachment project shall track together through the process so they are built simultaneously. 9. Review the site to improve the appearance of the north wall facing West 78th Street consistent with the comments and discussion of the II Planning Commission. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Batzli: I'd take a look at the lighting of the parking lot. I don't want them turned on full blast all night. The next we need to pass a motion on the interim use permit to get the grading done. Does anyone have a motion here? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of 1 Interim Use Permit #92 -6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992 and subject to the staff conditions 1 thru 8. Emmings: Second. 1 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 61 Batzli: On condition 5, is there a typo? Is the word and, should that be an? I was just confused. I mean it's a small point. Aanenson: Submit a? An administrative fee. Batzli: Okay, so they're submitting an administrative fee and letter of credit, okay. What's the difference between an administrative, so the fee is the city fee? Aanenson: Correct. Erhart: Number 8. It says the City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of trees and location of snow fences. What does that mean? Krauss: Well, it's kind of a standard condition we have. Erhart: What is location of snow fences? Aanenson: Defining the lines of grading. Krauss: We require that they be marked. The no cut area. Erhart: Alright, so you're going to define the line by the installation, okay and location of snow fences. Okay, that assumes you understand that we're putting in snow fences to delineate that. Krauss: They're putting them in, yeah. Batzli: Do we normally have a little condition that talks about erosion control. Is that in here? 11 Aanenson: It's part of the Watershed approval too. Batzli: That's Watershed? Krauss: Well no, we normally have our own condition. What's unusual in this case is the Watershed District reviewed it before we did and had the same conditions we would have supplied. • Folch: Actually, the erosion control that was shown on the plan, we didn't require any additional erosion control be placed on so if you're approving the grading plan with this, that erosion control is sufficient. Batzli: Okay. Any further discussion? 11 Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92 -6 as shown on the site plan dated September 9, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: 1 1. The applicant needs to submit information on interim detention ponds and /or drainage systems for the site given that storm sewer systems will not be constructed until next spring. Planning Commission Meeting , September 16, 1992 - Page 62 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and P oor soil stockpiles. 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited tcl Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. II The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limtied to 7:00 a.m."' to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agencl permits such as Watershed District. 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. 8. The City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure I/ preservation of the trees and location of snow fences. All voted in favor and the motion carried. r ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023. HEIGHT OF FENCES AND SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. 1 Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I've got to bring Steve home. Emmings: You know, we could make a motion on this next one. Aanenson: We've got a big agenda next week too so tabling's not going t help. Farmakes: Let's get it done. Erhart: I move it. Krauss: Could you also open and close the public hearing. Batzli: This is a public hearing? I open the public hearing. I'd lfice the record to show that there's no one here from the public that wants t comment on our Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Does anyone have any comments on this? Ledvina: No. 1 11 CO ( !,) (1) (5 ) LI) ( (.? 0°) ro•vo ma , I I I 1 I I (1) I 1 1 itir I -11:Z__ -WIL- 1_ 1 11,0 . ___1_ __ 44, i . -.16:2- • 1;;; fACI CITY OF CHAN1FN II 1 1 I r. ,-... ,,, 1.-- .1 V , ••••••• • ..., I I -----I j4 SP 2 (-...) a i t - . 1 ___ _ _ _ CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT r-o-lo fAa --11 1/ Fri , i '- I -.7 2 ", :. - —"*"."' - , 7 y t . s • .. r -.: ::;,... :BA . ; • ,‘, ,: 1 ^. P '' . ! 1 .1;1, , , ... 111 .T. 4 _ _ __ _ ,vill. 1 ,1 il 4:r,1*Pg _ttri. !TAR TIALILAN __ 1 /16 1 9) p 0 ? (f) Y ( ( 1 1 1 1 , 1 , 1 N_ ah, -- li --- 1 ---- - -• ••• - -•-- ,, -- • - - ,-- -' - „..Prlyant 3J., - j .,, .;!•:2 4 :- * " 2 " ' A oll 0 • — - • 4 11 11 r111 ICYMGMEtir , , 11,11111m of' - -t. ,-...> •---, • I IIIIIIIIilihRiiMMili'l I -----':-- - II -- - " •'i '11110 !Row ELEVATION I ,. OW ACA:1011 SIMS 14.1.14 51011010111 - MUM CM. 9) op (1) Y ' Y ( 7 ) 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 , • i n ., Mk 4; .., t_ .t..,- -...4 IIIIIIMM mom I , mom 1, Anoimilmob,. iliA, ._ , .1v. . ,. i • ; all= 12. 11111111111=iii 1 1111It. ii a MI IIIII 11 / .....ara41: " 1- OSI a n ILEFT QEVATION Mo • 9) 1 1/ ( -, 1 1 1 1 i 1 i e-' -- .:' t :,-- -- '• " - - 0--fq ..-...--- - , • -z ..,,• I REAR ELEVATION .- - y 9) l, (0) 1 , (1) 10 ( 11 1 1 () 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0-114.8tr"' A. , .. ,„„st ,7- !!''‘ 4 ', ,.1 - 1 ' . ,,._..,....--:- a 4 ;,:---' '-'4 , ;.:. ,• -4. 1 ..4. - - . - I k' - '----------- ,_ _. . ;; ..-r[ .._:,....„____„....„..i. it ... ... . LAMM . ..._ _ . ._.. 1 RICII( ELEVATION 0 TARGET .."....-__ - P1-93 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PARTIAL PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OD /a ...z 1••••••■••■• IMI -- 1111111 NM IIIIII IIIIII MI 111.11 MO MN 111111 EMI MI IMO NUM IMO Mil Mill EMI IMO EMI