PC Minutes 1-4-05
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL BUILDING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN LED MONUMENT SIGN ON 1.61 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED
HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT. LOCATJ:D AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST 79TH STREET (AMERICANA BANK
BUILDING). WALGREENS. APPLICANT. SEMPER DEVELOPMENT. LTD AND
ROBERT DITTRICH. PLANNING CASE 05-03.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Cindy MacDonald
Allen W. Obemolte
Neil Tessler
John Kohler
4210 W. Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington
106 Tanager Road, Mankato
GEl Engineering
Semper Development
821 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Keefe: Could you put a picture of the sign up? Do we have that?
AI-Jaff: Sure.
Keefe: The LED portion. Oh, it's down there. A cross parking agreement. How do those get
enforced? I mean I was reading through that and I was like okay, well at 5:01 you know all of a
sudden we've got the 42nd car coming in to park at Walgreen's and they presumably don't have
that. Okay.
I
Sacchet: Do we want to wait for the applicant?
I
Keefe: Yeah, maybe...
r
I¡
J
f
I
Sacchet: Let's let staff finish their part and then...
Keefe: Can you speak to the circulation on the north side and maybe as a part of that, do we
know how sort of frequent the trucks unload? When do they unload? Maybe that's another
applicant, okay.
Sacchet: Applicant will be addressing that, yep.
Keefe: Maybe you can just address.
Aanenson: I think we should address the circulation.
65
· -,
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Sacchet: The circulation aspect, alright. That's a Matt item right?
Saam: Yeah, I can show you how it's going to work.
Sacchet: Please. Since that was a concern here.
Saam: The applicant had a traffic study done to look at the internal circulation. The two conflict
points that came out of the traffic study were for the entrance into this drive thru and then the
exiting because this drive aisle does work as a two way directional drive aisle. So there would
be conflicting traffic where people going into the drive thru would have to cross with other
people going to the east.
Keefe: Where's the loading?
Saam: Excuse me?
Keefe: Where's the loading and unloading?
Aanenson: In the back.
Keefe: Is it over there? Okay, so it's at that point.
Saam: And so basically the recommendation of the traffic study, while it was true either you can
make this existing drive thru aisle now, it exists as a two way drive aisle with I believe 3 drive up
windows for the bank tellers. You could make that into a one way where only exiting traffic
would come out, or we could let it go as is because the existing site, as the report says, generates
about the same amount of traffic. In fact I would say a bank drive thru is going to have a heavier
load, heavier concentrated load at certain times. Your Friday evenings, that sort of thing versus a
pharmacy. So what we're recommending, to make a long story short, is that we do let it go as is
now. As is being proposed. We monitor. If there are issues then we can always make that a one
way, an exit only out.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Yeah, with the bank it's pretty obvious that there, that those are drive thru's there so
people coming in from Market Boulevard, it's quite clear that they've got to watch out for people
coming out of the drive thru's. Do you have any concerns from a safety perspective for people
making a right turn on Market and coming in? You know it doesn't look as obvious, like it's a
drive up and people could.
Saam: Yeah we talked about that a little bit with the applicant and with raising this, or making it
a curb, the island inbetween. In addition to signage here. They're going to have pavement
markings also on the ground. Again maybe the applicant can add something to this.
Sacchet: He definitely will. You'll get your turn.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Saam: But I think through signage and making it an island.
Aanenson: And striping.
Saam: Yes, and striping, that it's going to work. And it's not really a different set up than
what's happening now, so people, the people who are using it now, going to Applebee's, really
shouldn't experience.
Sacchet: In terms of consistency Commissioner Slagle has a good question that I'm asking.
What did we do with CVS? Is that a one way by the drive thru?
Saam: Yeah. Yes, that's a one way. They have a.
Generous: They have a separate.
Aanenson: They don't have the shared parking.
Saam: Yeah, they have a separate, yeah. And there's a number of other issues but.
Sacchet: But they have a different access situation. You actually drive around the building.
~
Slagle: Well if! can add?
¡
r
Sacchet: Please. We're still at the question part though. We're not at comments yet.
Slagle: No. I want to ask the question, because if I'm not mistaken, the flow, if you will of the
drive thru and the position of the drive thru is approximately the same area, right? I mean it's in
that upper northeast corner and you have in the case of CVS folks going to, once they pick up
their item, going to the west and having to take a quick right and then a left to get to Galpin. I
mean folks I've got to tell you, I don't see much difference here, do you? That's my question.
I
Saam: Oh yeah. Yeah, I don't see people when they leave here saying well let's now whip
around and come back here. I mean yeah, it's possible but on CVS they have to do that in order
to get out to Galpin to get out to 5 because we don't want them making a U turn at Galpin. So
here they can go right out this ramp and go to the north.
Slagle: You know Matt, I should have asked it differently. What I'm saying is that once they've
picked up, even in this situation, this case they just go straight out to Market and take a right or
take a left, and CVS, or yes, CVS, they go a little bit west and they take a quick right to get to
that little service road and then they take a left and then they take a right to go on Galpin. All
I'm saying is that the traffic is flowing with the direction of the, whatever you call it. The drop
off, pick up. So I'm saying, why wouldn't we make this a one way? Why would you let people
come in, going against traffic and actually going, and possibly going against traffic in a different
lane that people are used to driving on.
67
Keefe: Is this just two lanes wide? Is that how wide this is?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Saam: As it is now. Two lanes wide.
Keefe: So if people are picking up and they're driving in the left hand lane, does that put people
into something, you're going to be in the right hand lane, are you going to have a conflict with
somebody coming in the right hand lane with somebody coming out?
Sacchet: There is a third lane for the trucks.
Saam: Well yeah, there's a third but the drive aisle is two lanes wide as it is now.
Sacchet: Drive aisle is two lanes and then is the drive thru lane also.
Saam: Yes, then there's a drive thru lane which is a third lane but there's going to be a barrier
inbetween the two.
Slagle: I guess I'm just asking, why wouldn't we want it as a one way?
Saam: Well we don't see, I guess maybe planning can add something to this but the way I've
been told is that to facilitate the neighborhood type trips that go on with the other properties.
Aanenson: We're always looking at trying to, similar on West 78th. If you're at the bank, TCF
Bank, do you have to get back onto West 78th to go to the next business? No. You try to have
internal movements within there so if you're in internally within there, so. Well do you have to
put all the traffic on that corner of West 79th, so could you cut through as an alternative?
Keefe: Well like you say, we could address it later. Monitor it.
Papke: But I don't understand Kate, how would making that a one way prevent you.
Aanenson: Because making all the turn movements that want to go to the interior uses have to
come to that corner and go down.
Lillehaug: It's loading it up.
Aanenson: It's loading up the corner, right. We always try to provide options so you're not
loading all those.
Sacchet: There's only one out if you do that. That's your point, right?
Aanenson: Correct. And it's, you know it's how we set it up with the other businesses there.
They would like to see it remain. That was always their goal to try to maintain those cross. Not
just between the two businesses, but to get out to another collector out to Market.
Sacchet: So it's in view ofthe context, not just this one property here?
68
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Aanenson: Right, and we're saying you know, maybe there might be some conflicts but we'd
like to evaluate that over time. The bank functioned that way with more than one window.
People function. It's a cueing where you have to slow down. Pay attention. If you're going to
cut through any parking lot. We would like to monitor that.
Sacchet: Okay. Pretty convincing. Alright, we're at the questions of staff stage, if I remember
right. Do we have more questions of staff?
Lillehaug: I do. I want to hurry through these, sorry. Page number 15. Condition 23. I've
never seen a condition like this before regarding, recommend an approval withdrawing of
previous site plan. I don't understand that.
Sacchet: Where are you?
Aanenson: The bank is already on the site.
Lillehaug: Page 15, condition number 23.
AI-Jaff: Because we have an existing site plan approval, and that's been recorded with the
County.
Lillehaug: I guess if that's what we want to do, it doesn't matter I guess. If it sounds good.
Papke: We're demolishing the old building so that old site plan no longer applies?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Lillehaug: But do we need to disapprove previous site plans though? I mean how do we go
forward.
Sacchet: Withdrawing.
t
Sacchet: Withdrawing. They have to pull it back so it's not registered anymore, isn't that?
I
Lillehaug: Withdrawing?
Lillehaug: Do we do that for the theater and anywhere else that's redeveloped? Now I'm
wasting time. It doesn't matter that it's in there but do we want to do that going forward from
here on?
~'
Aanenson: Legal counsel advised that.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: Legal counsel advised, alright.
69
-
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Lillehaug: Page 13. Page 13. Looking at the actual recommendation, it says with a variance
specifically. Reduction in parking. What are we approving for a variance? You're just saying a
reduction in parking. I mean I'm not comfortable, I'm not sure what that variance is really
stating there. A variance for the reduction of parking but do we need to quantify that?
AI-Jaff: Technically.
Lillehaug: How do we quantify it I guess.
AI-Jaff: Sure. The building is shown as 15,000 square feet, which translates to 73, 70 parking
spaces. However, this is taking the trash enclosure into consideration. All of the area that will
be used for storage.
Lillehaug: So are you saying a reduction of parking as quantified in the report.
Sacchet: And the plans. As shown in the plans.
Lillehaug: Okay. Moving on.
Sacchet: So it is specific Steve.
Lillehaug: Okay. Page 12. Ah, that's a... The rest of mine are, oh. Can you comment on, no.
You already did. That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay. Kurt.
Papke: How far away is this LED sign from the one on the Legion? In front of the Legion. Can
you see one from the other?
AI-Jaff: No.
Papke: You cannot see one from the other?
AI-Jaff: No.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: One question here. Is there a variance for surface coverage?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: And that's in the. Okay. Done with questions? Applicant please. Your turn. Thanks
for your patience.
John Kohler: Oh thank you very much for allowing us to be heard this evening. I really
appreciate that. My name is John Kohler. I'm an architect with Semper Development, 821
70
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis. I'll make this as quick as possible. We worked very closely
with Sharmeen and staff throughout the project and just to give you an idea of design, she had
mentioned that we are using the different brick tones. This is a view of, this is the service area of
the building. This is the trash enclosure and all so it is quite different. And also in working with
staff on the drive thru issue which you separated, we used to have a very small island like this
over that they recommended that we put a full awning with the columns and the island which
will even further separate them. We are requesting a variance on that hard surface coverage.
We've gone into a bit of that. That has to do with a great deal of shared parking. Shared surface
for drive aisles and things, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Sacchet: That was fast. Thank you so much. That's appreciated. Certainly at this hour.
Questions from the applicant.
Papke: Yes.
Sacchet: Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: There was a statement in the report that, or perhaps it was in your letter that this
Walgreen's is designed substantially different from the other Walgreen's.
John Kohler: Very much so.
Papke: Could you succinctly describe how this one differs from the one just a mile or two down
the road in Eden Prairie.
John Kohler: Yeah that, as you recall has a fair amount, are you talking about the one at 4 and
5?
Papke: Yes.
John Kohler: Okay. It's brick. It's all one tone of brick. It has some stucco. It's got the fake
mansard roofs. It has glass on just the two front sides where we're, we have glass all the way
around this building. All four sides which I believe is a requirement of the city. We have the
awnings on all four sides. This is really four sided architecture. And that's what we really tried
to.
!I'
œ;
Aanenson: And the glass goes all the way down too.
John Kohler: And the glass goes all the way down, yeah. I mean there's vision glass at the top.
There's span row glass. There's a number of different things, and that's also what we've tried to
show in this photo that we've actually laid the building right into an actual photo of the site so
you can really see how it addresses the site. And this is a site, this is an entrance to Chanhassen
and that was something that Sharmeen really drilled into me as we were designing this building,
that this has to be a significant building on this corner. So that definitely is different.
Sacchet: Rich.
r:
r
~
71
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Slagle: Just a quick question. Would you be open to placing, if you have the space, a couple of
benches with some landscaping?
John Kohler: Actually we are.
Slagle: Good.
John Kohler: At the entry and we would be happy to go further in that and Sharmeen had
addressed this also. It has to do with our hard surface coverage. Initially we would liked to have
put additional benches out at the intersection of Market and 79th, but, which we could do. We
would require some additional hard surface coverage so that we could incorporate that off the
sidewalk, but we would be happy to do that. In essence we had already looked at that with our
earlier scheme but we were trying to minimize the variance as much as possible.
Slagle: And the reason I ask is, you can see people walking from the restaurants to the movie
theater and sitting with lamp posts or whatever.
John Kohler: Yep.
Sacchet: Steve?
Lillehaug: A couple quick ones. We got a Walgreen's 4-5 miles to the east and new CVS 2
miles to the west.
John Kohler: I'm so aware of that. Actually what I can tell you about stores like these, this store
serves an area that's about, well a mile to a mile and a half radius is what a store like this, the
area. The contributory area to a store like this. With all the copays everybody has on their
pharmacy items, things like that, people don't drive very far to get a prescription. It's very close.
Lillehaug: Okay. You're asking for a variance of about 5 percent. You tripled the size of the
building there. What's the, compare their size of Walgreen's in Eden Prairie to this size here in
Chanhassen. Square footage wise.
John Kohler: Actually, square footage wise it's probably very similar. On this one we've
actually enclosed that whole trash and delivery area.. .so that's all under roof which in that case it
is not. You can see that along the east side of that building. As you come around the corner of
the drive thru. That whole east side is to service the trucks and all that so, in this case square
footage is about the same as that one. We looked at going up and down. We've looked at trying
to pack this thing in quite a few ways.
Lillehaug: But maybe a point of clarification with staff. I mean regardless if that trash
enclosure's inside versus outside, you're not going to reduce your impervious area by taking it
from outside to in.
John Kohler: But it would have been a lot smaller.
72
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Lillehaug: It would have been smaller?
John Kohler: Right, because now.
Lillehaug: 5 percent smaller? I mean I know it's one argument.
John Kohler: Right, no. We would have had that, right now it would have been much further
back in the building. We would have had all sorts of driveways to get to it. We were also trying
to eliminate any driveways, any parking. Or not pavement type surfaces between the building
and the street, which is why we also enclosed that whole area. So we've enclosed even the
service area in behind those items.
Keefe: Just one quick comment and question. I think it's a great looking Walgreen's. I mean
it's awesome looking. I think it's going to be terrific. The question regards to the circulation on
the north side and the loading area and kind of how that, and your thoughts on the two way
traffic. Can you just speak to that?
John Kohler: Yeah. We've dealt with that in numerous Walgreen's locations. Just to give you
an idea on the pharmacy, about 50 percent of their business is pharmacy business and of that
maybe 10 percent goes through the drive thru. They don't want a lot of people going through the
drive thru. There's a reason that pharmacy's way in the back of the store. You know they want
people walking through, so there aren't a lot of cars cued up there and I think that's what Jim
Benshoof and his study, and we asked him to look at that very issue. But then as a back-up, so
that we were not, you know if a problem did arise, and I think we have a very good way of
handling that problem. The space is there. We can simply make that a one way drive and if it's
an issue, it goes away.
Keefe: In terms of trucks.
John Kohler: Trucks. The Walgreen service truck comes once a week and it's there for about 4
hours.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing so this is the
time for any resident to come up and address this item, if you so choose. Is there any takers?
Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for discussion and
comments. Who wants to start? No comments? No discussion?
Lillehaug: I have some comments but I don't want to start.
Slagle: I'll start quickly. I support the proposal. I would like to ask consideration on my fellow
commissioners that we increase the variance of the impervious, if that will allow a couple of
benches, and I'm throwing out a light post, a lamp post, something like that. And then secondly,
and I think just as important as this first one is, we really stick with this developer on the one
way option, if it gets to that point.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Aanenson: Certainly. We don't want to do anything to jeopardize their business, certainly. But
there is a good reason for...but we want to monitor it, certainly.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright, any other comments?
Lillehaug: I have some. I agree with Commissioner Slagle about the drive thru. It is different
from existing. If you go into that existing driveway there right now, you are 3 lanes, it's
separated from the two way. You have a certain distance as you're exiting that driveway before
you have to merge back into the two way lane. I mean that's one. When you come out of a drive
thru, you don't want to instantly have to be merging and thinking of conflicts with traffic coming
at you, trying to merge out into a drop off area. My opinion is, it needs to be a one way. There's
no other situation in the city where you have a, even in drive thru's in general. Most driveways,
you have a certain distance of a one way coming out of that drive thru. It really needs to be a
one way in there. I know it's going to load up the intersection to the south of the building a little
more but, so that's my comment on that. The 5 percent variance for hard surface coverage,
we're tripling the size of the building in there. Wow. I mean that's quite a bit. I mean it's a
great looking plan but I mean where do we draw the line? Is this where we draw the line? We
give them 5 percent to have a triple the size building in there? I am not sold on that. Look at the
findings of the variance, you know they're tripling the size of the building for one. I'm talking
about the trash enclosure, in my mind, having it inside versus outside, I just don't see where
they're increasing the hard surface by 5 percent. Even maybe 1 percent by having that inside.
It's possible I guess. The City's not asking to install too much more sidewalk. You know that
was one of the arguments. One of the difficulty or hardship that's saying that it's a result of the
cross parking agreement to provide 22 parking spaces. That was known buying the property. I
mean I can't buy off on that either, so I guess my opinion is, do we require a reduction in the size
of the building? And maybe if possible, could we ask the applicant if that's a possibility?
Sacchet: We have a question possibly for the applicant.
John Kohler: Personally I don't think Walgreen's would do it. We looked at trying to go down.
We looked at, and when you say 3 times the size of the building. The bank's two stories so.
Lillehaug: Right. Right.
John Kohler: We're one.
Lillehaug: Okay.
John Kohler: So.
Lillehaug: Same height.
John Kohler: Quite that but, we looked at it. We do have a water table issue there. Bob got into
that with the basement on the bank. So we were looking at doing some issues there. The
74
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
problem is, if we take the storage and put in another level, we really don't make the footprint that
much smaller because of the elevators and the stairs you end up needing. As you can see on that
plan, the storage is simply that area along the west side. The rest is bathrooms, things like that.
So it doesn't save us a whole lot of room.
Lillehaug: Okay. Then let me ask staff a question. Are we going to over load our storm water
ponds by this extra 5 percent?
Saam: Well we looked at that and for the commercial business district, the TR 55 storm water
runoff, assumes 85 percent impervious so we should be okay there.
Papke: There's a big pond across the street.
Sacchet: Follow-up question for staff based on comments from Commissioner Lillehaug. On
page 12 in the middle of the staff report there's a statement, the majority, not just some but the
majority of buildings within the surrounding areas have received hard surface coverage
variances. Do we have any quantative information how big those are? I mean 5 percent? 10
percent? 20 percent? I mean do we have any idea? I guess at 11:30 at night that's a tough
question but.
AI-Jaff: I don't recall the exact numbers, however Tires Plus, Applebee's, Buffalo Wild Wings
and Chipotle.
Sacchet: They all have variances?
AI-J aff: Each and every single one of them. ..
í
I
Sacchet: Because it's kind of hard to not, to push for not having a variance here if 4 properties
immediately next to it have it you know.
it:
Lillehaug: I'd buy that.
.
.
Sacchet: Alright. Any more discussion? Comments. Motion.
~
~
i\
Papke: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 05-
3 for a 15,000 square foot building to house a retail building and pharmacy with a variance to
allow a 70.4% hard surface coverage and reduction in parking based on the findings of the staff
report, and as shown on the plans dated received December 3, 2004, subject to conditions 1
through 23. Plus I'd like to add two additional conditions. Condition number 24. Alter the
drive up on the north side to one way. Condition number 25. Allow additional hard surface
variance coverage for an additional bench on the southwest corner.
t
t,
Sacchet: Do we have a second? Or, yeah first a second. Any second?
Slagle: I'll second it.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Sacchet: We have a second. Any friendly amendments?
Papke moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan 05-3 for a 15,000 square foot building to house a retail building and pharmacy, with a
variance to allow a 70.4% hard sudace coverage and reduction in parking, based on the
findings of the staff report, and as shown on the plans dated received December 3, 2004,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to final approval.
2. Landscape islands shall have a minimum inside width of 10 feet.
3. Add the latest City standard detail plate Nos. 5207, 5300, and 5301.
4. On the utility plan:
a. Revise the proposed inverts for catch basin No.1 to 949.25 and 949.19,
respectively.
b. Label the existing water stub to the site off Market Boulevard as 8" DIP.
5. On the grading plan:
a. Add a benchmark.
b. Show the proposed storm sewer.
c. Increase the rock construction entrances to a minimum of 75-feet in length.
d. Show the parking lot stall locations and striping.
e. Show the missing 954 contour elevation along the north side of the property.
6. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
7. The applicant must show the location/elevation of an emergency overflow point for catch
basin No.2 that is 1.5-feet lower than the proposed building elevation.
8. Storm sewer sizing calculations will be required at the time of building permit
application. The proposed storm sewer must be sized for a 10-year storm event.
9. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new building. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955 per unit for
watermain. The 2005 SAC charge is $1,525 per unit. All of these charges are based on
the number of SAC units calculated by the Met Council. Since there is an existing
building, only hook-up charges for the additional SAC units will be charged. These
charges will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel.
10. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
76
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
11. Permits from the MPCA, Watershed District and Railroad will be required for the site
grading.
12. All drive aisle widths within the parking lot must be 26-feet wide per City Code and the
existing driveway aprons must be upgraded to current City standards per Detail Plate No.
5207.
13. The existing assessment for the recent 2004 Street Overlay Project, totaling $11,436.83
plus interest, must be paid prior to building permit issuance.
14. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates and meet NURP water
quality standards.
15. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10: 1 to 3: 1 14 days
Flatter than 10:121 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other
natural or manmade systems that discharge to a surface water.
16. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase IT Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
18.
Fire Marshal Conditions
a. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., streetlamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters (pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1).
b. Indicate on utility plans the location of PIV (post indicator valve). Fire Marshal must
review and approve.
i
t
~.
,
¡
~.
19.
Building Official Conditions:
a. The building is required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing systems.
77
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c. A demolition permit must be obtained prior to beginning demolition activities on the
site.
d. The site must be protected with an 8 foot high fence during demolition and
construction activities.
e. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are
submitted.
f. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon
as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
20. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
21. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the
necessary financial securities.
22. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed
sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff, should be provided
prior to requesting a sign permit.
23. The Planning Commission recommends the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan 92-1 for the
Americana Community Bank building, concurrently with the approval of Planning Case 05-
3. The applicant shall file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County."
24. Alter the drive up on the north side to one way.
25. Allow additional hard sudace variance coverage for an additional bench on the
southwest corner.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Sacchet: I would like to make a comment to encourage council to consider staff's reasoning
about doing the two way and monitor it. Personally at first I thought it was a bad idea but when I
heard staff's reasoning I had to admit there was some merit in it so that's just a comment in
addition to this.
Aanenson: Can we get a motion on the conditional use too.
Sacchet: And we need a motion, alright we need a last motion guys. It's on page 16.
Papke: Okay, okay, okay. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval for Conditional Use Permit 05-03 for the LED display within a monument ground low
profile sign.
Sacchet: Second.
78
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Papke moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval for
Conditional Use Permit 05-03 for the LED display within a monument ground low profile
sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 7, 2004 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
i
~'
~
i
I'
79
t
r
~
I
I
~