7. Site Plan Review for a Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and a Car Wash, Th 5 & 101, Amoco Oil 7
C I TY O F P.C. DATE: Nov. 16, 1988
.\\I 1 CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: Dec. 12 , 1988
CASE NO: 88-11 Site Plan
1 Prepared by: Olsen/v
I STAFF REPORT
I
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a Convenience Stox gc ,ti
Gas Pumps and a Car Wash ,?ct�Cri `: �' in�stratnr
Immi
Q `t-
I0 LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Hwy. 5 and 101
—, =.e . -:cto g,cii
i9 APPLICANT: Amoco Oil Company Mr. Jim Filippi
Q 7 5001 West 80th Street, #890 North Star Engineering
I Bloomington, MN 55437 3025 Harbor Lane No, #1( 4
Plymouth, MN 55441
1
PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business District
1 ACREAGE: 1 .16 acres
DENSITY:
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- BH; Brown Car Wash
IS- BN; Hwy. 5/American Legion
E- BH; Hanus facility
W- BH; Holiday• ay Station
1 W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site.
U) PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
The site contains an existing Amoco Standard
Station and automatic car wash
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
II
o —-- n��ll ,� ` t —x-72-•
m. I _V-- � \ LAKE \�■ 3
i n V k tle* 7301} ��:
R i ►�11► y 1I.�Ys `�`\ 7400 win
=p' ''��''` ��� 1 ' — t r-R12
R 1 :� :% •t. tog \ _ o co
.
co
i .. _, LT pp
1
Lai rl�� • .. .� �ij O —
.� _ j _
°` ,ow! NNW �Li .1; =, �" �.
'C rjI -.-
_______ ��.. IIII/11 _u'I 'l-:'111 I 2 co
laftit : LW 11111111111W z ammo �■ am illy' w. TH .ST.
BG
m c., - BD L1074_, ■■
14 jin _ ---------1,,rgi voi• • _ - , 1,?,..,Nariplar
, ,...„ _ .. _.:2 411.411 .s.--
31
-m-- _
Imo"iP c;:. > ao•_ .ai ,1 !'� 8en 8100
1 \�� $ � ii�,.� — 8200
I
/ ._)-.. ► •I Ng,. le RSF
_�� __� € VDAKO AN =_
�' INNEN
83�
t. � ' CIACIE �j
s �r
��! \
�
LAKE SUSAN �=. k _�
(1 % r ' .� 8
11 RD _ �- *# R/C E Al 'SH LAKE
��-�-y
I"
I 86 TH ST. lb '-�/
- - - f 861
m
8700
•
RSF I
1'
' Amoco Site Plan
November 16 , 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-712 allows convenience stores with gas pumps and car
washes as a permitted use in the BH District.
Section 20-715 requires the maximum lot coverage of 65% with set-
backs of 25 feet for front yards , 20 feet for rear yards and 10
feet for side yards . The parking and off-street parking areas
shall comply with all yard requirements of the section. The
maximum height of a structure is 2 stories .
Section 20-1178 requires all trash disposal units to be comple-
tely screened on all sides .
Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting
right-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40
' feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least 2 feet.
Section 20-1192 requires interior property lines to be landscaped
' with one tree per 40 feet.
Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use
areas .
' Section 20-1125 requires 1 parking space for each 200 square feet
of gross floor area for shopping centers .
' Section 20-1303 permits one ground low profile sign per street.
frontage with a maximum of two signs per lot which do not exceed
80 square feet in sign display area or 8 feet in height. In no
' case shall any lot contain 2 free standing business signs when
such signs are ground low profile or pylon signs . The BH
District permits one pylon business sign not exceeding 64 square
' feet per lot. A pylon sign greater than 64 square feet but equal
to or less than 80 square feet may be permitted upon a con-
ditional use permit. Such signs shall be located at least 10
' feet from any property line and shall not exceed 20 feet in
height. The BH District also permits one wall business sign per
street frontage for each business occupant within a building.
The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed
' 15% of the total area of the building wall and no individual
business signs shall exceed 80 square feet.
' All rooftop equipment must be completely screened
Section 20-1255 allows motor fuel price signs to be affixed only
' to the fuel pump and that they shall not exceed four ( 4 ) square
feet.
Amoco Site Plan
November 16, 1988
Page 3
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Asst. City Engineer Attachment #2
Building Department Attachment #3 ,
Public Safety Attachment #4
Fred Hoisington Attachment #5 '
MnDOT Attachment #6
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission first reviewed the site plan application
on September 21, 1988 (Attachment #7) . The Commission tabled the
item until access issues could be resolved. The applicant has
submitted a new site plan which addresses the access issues and
addresses other issues brought up by staff after the first site
plan review.
ANALYSIS '
The site is located at the northeast corner of Hwy. 101 and Hwy.
5 . The site currently contains a Brown' s Standard Automotive
Service Station with an automatic car wash. The most easterly
portion of the site is not developed. The applicant is proposing
to remove all of the existing structures and underground tanks
and pipes and develop a completely new site to conform to the new
Amoco site plan.
The proposed site plan contains a convenience store with gas
pumps, gas canopy, and an automatic car wash. The site plan
shows a future addition containing a four-stall self-serve car
wash. The future addition will not be reviewed at this time.
The applicant will have to receive a separate site plan approval
by the Planning Commission and City Council when the future addi-
tion is proposed to be constructed. The site plan locates the
convenience store, gas pumps, and gas canopy along the westerly
portion of the site. The remainder of the site will remain in
its existing state.
The convenience store is 1 ,030 square feet and the the applicant '
is proposing four gas pump islands with a total of 8 fueling
positions . The gas pumps will permit one car on either side to
fuel at a time. The gas pumps and canopy are located on the
north and south side of the convenience store (two on each side) .
The automotive car wash is located north of the northerly gas
pumps and canopy. The applicant is also proposing two additional
future pump islands located east of north and south islands.
When the future pumps are installed the gas canopy would also be
1
Ir
Amoco Site Plan
' November 16, 1988
Page 4
extended to cover those areas . The applicant has asked staff to
review the future pump islands at this time rather than having to
go through an amended site plan in the future. Staff finds no
objection to the addition of the future pump islands .
' Access
As part of the improvements to Hwy. 5 , MnDOT is proposing to make
improvements to Trunk Highway 101 from Hwy. 5 to just south of
the railroad tracks . MnDOT is proposing to construct a center-
line median which would restrict left turning movements from
traffic going north on TH 101 to West 79th Street and traffic
going south on TH 101 turning left into the Amoco site. The site
plan was tabled at the first Planning Commission meeting until
the access situation involving the proposed median by MnDOT could
be resolved.
The applicant has met with staff and has shown that the site plan
' will not change with either the two proposed access points to the
site or one center access point. The applicant has stated that
if the median is installed as proposed by MnDOT without any cuts
' provided, the site will remain as it is today. The applicant
prefers to have the two access points rather than one central
access point but understands that if the median is installed with
' one cut directly access from West 79th Street, that the site
would have to be amended to close the two access points and open
a central access directly across from the median cut in West 79th
Street. The city will be pursuing an amendment to the proposed
' MnDOT median plans by requesting a median cut directly across
West 79th Street. MnDOT has stated that there is a good possibi-
lity that the median cut will be approved since TH 101 is going
to be realigned and the jurisdiction of this section of TH 101 "
will mostly turn back over to the city. When and if the median
cut is allowed, staff is recommending that the site plan be
' approved conditioned upon the applicant closing the two access
points and creating a central access point which is directly
across from West 79th Street and the median cut.
The current plan proposes two access points with the southerly
access being a right in only. The applicant submitted this plan
to prevent traffic conflicts leaving and entering the site at the
southerly point which is located close the the Hwy. 5 intersec-
tion. Staff has reviewed the proposed right in only entrance and
has determined that the design of it would not prevent traffic
leaving the site at the southerly access and would prefer having
' the southerly access designed to allow full traffic movement
entering and leaving the site. The southerly access can not be
located further south than the existing southerly access .
As part of the improvements to TH 101 MnDOT will be widening 101 .
The right-of-way required for this widening has not yet been
' determined by MnDOT but the applicant should be aware that addi-
tional right-of-way will be required in the future.
1
Amoco Site Plan
November 16 , 1988
Page 5
The proposed site plan is closing access to the property directly
to the north which contains Gary Brown' s self serve car wash.
It has been determined that the applicant has the right to close
off this access since it is on their property. There is no
agreement between the subject property owner and Gary Brown which '
requires that access to the car wash be maintained.
Landscaping, Parking and Setbacks
The applicant is providing the required setbacks for parking and
structures from Hwy. 5 and 101 and the required 10 foot setback
from the most northerly property line. The vehicular area along
the south portion of the site is within the 25 foot setback. The
ordinance, under the landscaping section, states that vehicular
areas must maintain a 10 foot landscaped strip between vehicular
area and right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant is meeting the
vehicular setback requirements.
The applicant has increased the landscaping on the site from the
original site plan. The landscaping plan now meets the require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance by providing a two foot hedge bet-
ween
the vehicular area and right-of-way, increasing the number
of evergreens on the site and providing at least one tree per 40
feet along the perimeter of the site.
The applicant is providing four parking spaces . The convenience
store contains approximately 600 square feet of retail area which
requires four parking spaces to be provided. One of the parking
spaces must be a handicapped space.
Lighting, Signage and Trash Enclosures
The applicant is providing acceptable lighting standards
throughout the site. Page 4 of the site plan illustrates the
extent of the light seen from the site. The applicant is also
proposing recessed lighting in the canopy areas to further reduce
light impact to surrounding properties. The lighting plan shows
that the impact to surrounding properties is minimal and should
not conflict with traffic on Hwy. 5 and 101 . The lighting along
TH 101 is consistent with downtown lighting fixtures.
The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing pylon sign,
add three wall signs approximately nine square feet in size each
on the north, west and south side of the convenience store, one
wall sign 8 .5 square feet on the south side of the automatic car
wash, and three canopy signs, each approximately 11 .7 square feet
located on the east, west and south side of the southerly gas
canopy ( see Page 4 of site plan) .
The ordinance allows one wall sign per street frontage for each
business occupant within a building. Therefore, the applicant is
only permitted two wall signs on the convenience store. The
Amoco Site Plan
' November 16 , 1988
Page 6
' applicant is proposing three wall signs and one of them must be
removed. The wall signs on the convenience store are proposed at
9 . 3 square feet which meet the requirement of 15% or less of the
' wall area. The wall sign for the automatic car wash also meets
the requirement of 15% or less of the wall area. The ordinance
only permits motor fuel price signs within the gas pumps area.
In the past, the city has not permitted gas canopy signage
( SuperAmerica, Holiday and Brooks Superette) . The Amoco site
will maintain the existing pylon sign which has the Amoco name
and logo. Staff does not feel the additional signage on the
canopy is necessary and that it should not be permitted.
The applicant is proposing to have one brick trash enclosure
located in the median between the self-serve car wash and the
' convenience store. The trash enclosure is screened on all sides
with a brick wall and a wood fence entrance and is also
landscaped.
' Grading, Drainage, Utilities, Access and Circulation
' In his attached memo, the Assistant City Engineer address
grading, drainage, and utilities of the site and also addresses
access and circulation (Attachment #2) .
' Used Oil
The applicant is providing a 500 gallon waste oil tank and a
' facility for the public to recycle used oil. The applicant is
providing this as a service to the community.
' RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review
#88-11 with the following conditions:
' 1 . The self service car wash will require site plan approval .
2 . The two future gas pumps and extension of the gas canopy are
approved as part of this site plan.
3 . The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco
' Oil Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and
exits to the site to a total number of one if MnDOT grants
the City a median cut for the proposed island on State Trunk
' Highway 101 . This entrance would fall directly in line with
the centerline of West 79th Street. The costs for the
reconstruction would be at Amoco' s sole expense. This state-
ment shall be provided to the City prior to final site plan
' approval.
Amoco Site Plan
November 16 , 1988
Page 7
4 . The most southerly access shall not be located further south
than the existing southerly access and shall be designed for
full traffic movement (right-in and right-out) .
5 . The convenience store shall be permitted only two wall signs .
6 . The gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage including
the Amoco stripe name.
7 . The applicant shall provide the tank for used oil and shall
allow it to be open to the public. '
8 . The applicant shall remove the cars, trucks, etc. , stored on
the easterly portion of the site.
9 . The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer
facilities which connect to the City' s storm sewer system.
The proposed curb cut near State Highway 5 will not be accepted. '
10 . A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to final site plan approval .
11. Details for the construction of the curb radius for the
northerly access will be provided for approval by the City
Engineer prior to final approval.
12 . The proposed buildings shall be moved five feet to the south
such that adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may
be provided.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Amoco site
plan on a vote of 6 to 1 . Emmings voted against the approval of
the site plan because he felt that outdoor display and sales of
materials should not be permitted. The Planning Commission
recommended approval with the 12 conditions recommended by staff
with changes to the following:
3 . The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco
Oil Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and
exits to the site to a total number of one if MnDOT grants
the City a median cut for the proposed island on State Trunk
Highway 101. This entrance would fall directly in line with
the centerline of West 79th Street. The costs for the
reconstruction would be at Amoco' s sole expense. This state-
ment shall be provided to the City prior to final site plan
approval. Plans for the central access shall be provided and
approved by staff prior to its construction.
13 . The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with details
regarding the inflammable waste separator prior to construction. '
Amoco Site Plan
November 16 , 1988
Page 8
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
' "The City Council approves Site Plan Review #88-11 with the
following conditions:
1 . The self service car wash will require site plan approval.
2 . The two future gas pumps and extension of the gas canopy are
approved as part of this site plan.
3 . The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco
Oil Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and
exits to the site to a total number of one if MnDOT grants
the City a median cut for the proposed island on State Trunk
Highway 101. This entrance would fall directly in line with
the centerline of West 79th Street. The costs for the
' reconstruction would be at Amoco' s sole expense. This state-
ment shall be provided to the City prior to final site plan
approval. Plans for the central access shall be provided and
' approved by staff prior to its construction.
4 . The most southerly access shall not be located further south
' than the existing southerly access and shall be designed for
full traffic movement ( right-in and right-out) .
5 . The convenience store shall be permitted only two wall signs .
6 . The gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage including
the Amoco stripe name.
7 . The applicant shall provide the tank for used oil and shall
allow it to be open to the public .
8 . The applicant shall remove the cars , trucks, etc. , stored on
the easterly portion of the site.
' 9 . The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer
facilities which connect to the City' s storm sewer system.
The proposed curb cut near State Highway 5 will not be accepted.
' 10 . A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval prior to final site plan approval.
11 . Details for the construction of the curb radius for the
northerly access will be provided for approval by the City
Engineer prior to final approval.
12 . The proposed buildings shall be moved five feet to the south
such that adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may
be provided.
I
Amoco Site Plan
November 16 , 1988
Page 9
13 . The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with details
regarding the inflammable waste separator prior to construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1
1 . Excerpts from zoning ordinance.
2 . Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated November 10 , 1988 .
3 . Memo from Building Dept. dated September 12 , 1988 .
4 . Memo from Public Safety dated August 2, 1988 .
5 . Letter from Fred Hoisington dated September 9 , 1988 .
6 . Letter from MnDOT dated October 24, 1988 .
7 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 16 , 1988 .
8 . Letter from Amoco dated November 16 , 1988 .
9 . Site Plan dated October 20, 1988.
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
1
1
1
I, ,
IZONING § 20-712 0
I b. For rear yards, thirty(30)feet.
c. For side yards, fifteen(15)feet.
I (7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, one(1)story.
b. For accessory structures, one(1)story.
I (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 10(5-10-5), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-696-20-710. Reserved.
I
IARTICLE XVII. "BH" HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT
Sec. 20-711. Intent.
I The intent of the "BH" District is to provide for highway oriented commercial develop-
ment restricted to a low building profile.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-1), 12-15-86)
ISec. 20-712. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a "BH" District:
(1) Financial institutions.
I (2) Fast food restaurant.
(3) Automotive service stations.
I (4) Standard restaurants.
(5) Motels and hotels.
I (6) Offices.
(7) Retail shops.
I (8) Miniature golf.
(9) State-licensed day care center.
I (10) Car wash.
(11) Convenience store with or without gas pumps.
I (12) Personal service establishment.
(13) Liquor stores.
1 (14) Health services.
(15) Utility services.
1 (16) Shopping center.
1217
I
§ 20-712 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(17) Private clubs and lodges.
(18) Community center.
(19) Funeral homes. 1
(Ord. No. 80, Art.V, § 11(5-11-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-713. Permitted accessory uses. 1
The following are permitted accessory uses in a`BH" District:
(1) Signs. 1
(2) Parking lots.
(Ord. No. 80, Art.V, § 11(5-11-3), 12-15-86) 1
Sec. 20-714. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a`BH" District: 1
(1) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(2) Supermarkets. 1
(3) Small vehicle sales.
(4) Screened outdoor storage.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 11(5-11-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. 1
Sec. 20-715. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a `BH" District subject to 1
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum district area is ten (10) acres. This paragraph may be waived by a
condition use permit in the case of expansion of an existing district.
(2) The minimum lot area is twenty thousand(20,000)square feet.
(3) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage in all districts of sixty(60)feet.
(4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet. - 1
(5) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five(65)percent.
(6) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities,as provided in section 20-1122,except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard.
Minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
I218
1
I'
IZONING § 20-732 0
I district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. Other
setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, twenty-five(25)feet.
Ib. For rear yards, twenty(20)feet.
c. For side yards,ten(10)feet.
I (7) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, two(2)stories.
I b. For accessory structures, one(1)story.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-5), 12-15-86)
•
ISecs. 20-716-20-730. Reserved.
ARTICLE XVIII. "CBD" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Sec. 20-731. Intent.
IThe intent of the "CBD" District is to provide for downtown business development
supporting a strong central business district while enhancing the overall character of the
I community in conformance with downtown redevelopment plan, goals and objectives.
(Ord. No. 80, Art, V, § 12(5-12-1), 12-15-86)
ISec. 20-732. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a"CBD" District:
I (1) Bowling center.
(2) Retail shops.
I (3) Offices.
(4) Standard restaurants.
I (5) Liquor stores.
(6) Entertainment.
I (7) Convention and conference facilities.
(8) Financial institutions.
I (9) Health care facilities.
(10) Hotels.
I (11) Specialty retail(including but not limited to jewelry,book, stationery,bible,camera,
pets, arts and crafts, sporting goods).
(12) Supermarkets.
I 1219
'1
ZONING § 20-1125 1
(12) Mortuaries—One(1)space for every three(3)seats.
(13) Motel or hotel—One(1)parking space for each rental room or suite,plus one(1)space
for every two(2)employees. '
(14) Office buildings (administrative, business or professional)—Three (3)parking spaces
for each one thousand(1,000)square feet of floor area.
(15) Public service buildings, including municipal administration buildings, community
center, public library, museum, art galleries, and post office—One (1)parking space
for each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area in the principal structure, plus
one(1)parking space for each four(4)rests within public assembly or meeting rooms.
(16) Recreational facilities, including golf course, country club, swimming club, racquet
club, public swimming pool—Twenty (20) spaces, plus one (1) space for each five
hundred(500)square feet of floor area in the principal structure or two(2)spaces per
court.
(17) Research, experimental or testing stations—One (1)parking space for each five hun-
dred(500)square feet of gross floor area within the building, whichever is greater.
(18) Restaurant, cafe, nightclub, tavern or bar:
a. Fast food—One(1)space per sixty(60)square feet of gross floor area.
b. Restaurant: 1
L Without full liquor license—One (1) space per sixty (60) square feet of gross
floor area or one (1) space per two and one-half (21/2) seats whichever is
greater.
2. With full liquor license—One(1)space per fifty(50)square feet of gross floor
area or one(1)space per two(2)seats whichever is greater.
(19) Retail stores and service establishments—One (1) space for each two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area.
(20) School, elementary (public, private or parochial)—One (1) parking space for each 1
classroom or office room, plus one (1) space for each one hundred fifty (150) square
feet of eating area including aisles, in any auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria
intended to be used as an auditorium.
(21) School,junior and senior high schools and colleges(public,private or parochial—Four
(4) parking spaces for each classroom or office room plus one (1) space for each one 1
hundred fifty(150)square feet of seating area including aisles, in any auditorium or
gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium.
(22) Shopping center—On-site automobile parking shall be provided in a ratio of not less
than one(1)parking space for each two hundred(200)square feet of gross floor area;
separate on-site space shall be provided for loading and unloading.
(23) Storage, wholesale, or warehouse establishments—One (1) space for each one thou-
sand
(1,000)square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand(10,000)square feet and
one(1) additional space for each additional two thousand(2,000)square feet plus one 1
1249
3 • 1
I,
I § 20-1179 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
I (5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible.
(d) Tree removal not permitted under subdivision,planned unit development or site plan
review shall not be allowed without the approval of a tree removal plan by the city council.
ITree removal plans shall include the content requirements as dictated in section 20-1177 and
identify reasons for tree removal. The plan shall be submitted three (3) weeks in advance of
the city council at which it is to be considered.
I (e) This section does not apply to single-family and two-family lots of record.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 7, 12-15-86)
ISecs. 20-1180-20-1190. Reserved.
IDIVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 20-1191. Generally.
I (a) Where parking areas are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or
structure from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping between such
area and such right-of-way as follows:
1 (1) A strip of land at least ten (10) feet in depth located between the abutting right-of-
- way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include an average of
I one (1) tree for each forty (40) linear feet or fraction thereof. Such trees shall be
located between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area.
(2) In addition,a hedge,wall,berm,or other opaque durable landscape barrier of at least
Itwo(2)feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular use area.
If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving material, a shrub or vine shall be
planted along the street side of said barrier and be planted in such a manner to break
Iup the expanse of the wall. A two-foot berm may be used; however, additional
landscaping at least one (1)foot in height at time of planting shall be installed. The
remainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped with grass, ground
Icover, or other landscape treatment.
(b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping.
I (Ord.No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1192. Required landscaping adjacent to interior property lines.
I (a) Where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or
institutional purposes,that portion of such area not entirely screened visually by an interven-
ing structure or existing conforming buffer from an abutting property,there shall be provided
Ia landscaped buffer which should be maintained and replaced as needed. Such landscaped
buffer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other durable barrier at least six (6) feet in
height measured from the median elevation of the parking area closest to the common lot line,
Iand be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking areas or other vehicular
use area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed according to the
Istandards in section 20-1018.
1254
1
.1
ZONING 1
§ 20-1212
(b) In addition,an average of one(1)tree shall be provided for each forty(40)linear feet of
such parking area or fractional part thereof. Such trees shall be located between the common
lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area.
(c) Where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for office, commercial, or
industrial purposes, that portion of area not entirely screened visually by an intervening
structure or existing conforming buffer, shall comply with the tree provisions only as pre-
scribed in this section.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1193. Combining with easements.
The required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement as
long as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape bufferyard
shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. Cars or other objects
shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required landscape bufferyard more than
two and one-half(21/2)feet and curbs will be required.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1194. Existing landscape material.
Existing landscape material shall be shown on the required plan and any material in
satisfactory condition may be used to satisfy these requirements in whole or in part.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-4), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1195-20-1210. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS 1
Sec. 20-1211. Generally.
(a) Any open vehicular use area (excluding loading, unloading, and storage areas in the
IOP and BG districts)containing more than six thousand(6,000)square feet of area,or twenty
(20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with
this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular
or island types.
(b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such areas. ,
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1212. Landscape area. 1
(a) For each one hundred(100)square feet,or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area,five
(5)square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. 1
(b) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty-four (64) square feet, with a
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
1255
•
1
Fes_%•
ZONING § 20-1255
' Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit.
The following signs are allowed without a permit:
' (1) Campaign signs, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet in area. The sign must
contain the name of the person responsible for such sign, and that person shall be
responsible for its removal. Such signs shall remain for no longer than seventy-five
' (75) days in any calendar year. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy
signs not conforming to this paragraph.
' (2) Directional signs.
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The number of
' signs shall not exceed four(4)unless approved by the city council.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing
and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed
' through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be approved by the city
council and shall contain no advertising.
(3) Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious, nation-
, al, state or local holiday and no other matter and which are displayed for a period not
to exceed seventy-five(75)days in any calendar year.
(4) Informational signs not exceeding sixteen(16)square feet.
(5) Integral signs.
(6) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service
station only if such signs are affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of
a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that zoning
district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four(4)square
feet in sign display area.When such signs are made an integral part of a freestanding
business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price component shall not exceed
thirty(30)percent of the total sign display area of the sign.
(7) Nameplate signs not exceeding two(2)square feet.
' (8) Nonilluminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction, alteration
or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one (1)year of the date of issuance of
the first building permit on the site and may be extended on an annual basis. One(1)
' sign shall be permitted for each street the project abuts. Commercial and industrial
signs may not exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area, and residential construction
signs may not exceed twenty-four(24)square feet in sign area.
(9) O.S.H.A. signs.
(10) Signs of a public, noncommercial nature erected by a governmental entity or agency
including safety signs, directional signs to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic
signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and
the like.
111
1261
§ 20-1301 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
collector street as designated as such in this chapter. Such sign shall be located so as
not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall be
securely anchored to the ground.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. IX, § 5, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood business and institutional districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any 01 or B-1 District:
(1) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business or institu-
tional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area shall be
permitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs per lot. Such
sign shall be located at least ten(10)feet from any property line and shall not exceed
five(5)feet in height.
(2) Wall business sign. One(1)wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage
for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display area shall not exceed ten (10)percent of the total area of each building wall
upon which the signs are mounted, but no individual business sign shall exceed
twenty-four (24) square feet in sign display area. A wall business sign shall not be
mounted upon the wall of any building which faces any adjoining residential district
without an intervening public street.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. IX, § 7, 12-15-86) .
Sec. 20-1303. Highway and general business districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, or BF District: '
(1) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be
permitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs per lot. Such
signs shall not exceed eighty(80)square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
eight (8) feet in height. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any
property line.In no case shall any lot contain more than two(2)freestanding business
signs, whether such signs are pylon or ground low profile signs.
(2) Pylon business sign. One(1)pylon business sign, not exceeding sixty-four(64)square
feet in sign display area, shall be permitted per lot. A pylon business sign greater
than sixty-four(64)square feet,but equal to or less than eighty(80)square feet, may
be permitted after securing a conditional use permit. Such signs shall be located at
least ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in
height.In no case shall any lot contain more than two(2)freestanding business signs,
whether such signs are pylon or ground low profile signs.
(3) Wall business signs. One(1)wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage
for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign
display area shall not exceed fifteen(15)percent of the total area of the building wall
upon which the signs are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed eighty
(80)square feet in sign display area. A wall business sign may be mounted upon any
wall of a principal building.
1268
1
II
CITY OF
I .
__,
\ 7 HANHASSEN
, .
1
....,, _ ,.,_., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I O (612) 937-1900
L.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer -
I
DATE: November 10 , 1988
I SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Amoco Service Station
File No. 88-11 Site Plan, Amoco Corporation
I This site is located on the northeast corner of State Highways 5
and 101 . The site exists as Gary Brown ' s service station.
The application submitted calls for the reconstruction of the
I existing service station and the addition of the 1-bay automatic
car wash on the north side of the site. The 4-bay self-serve car
wash labeled future addition is not being considered at this time.
IApproval of the future addition will require a separate review.
In light of BRi7' s participation in the design and construction of
I the streets and utilities adjacent to this parcel , staff has
requested that they review this application as it relates to the
downtown project. I have incorporated BRW' s comments into the
content of this report.
ISanitary Sewer
I Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by the
existing 10-inch diameter sanitary sewer main located on the
northerly boundary of the site. The plans show three 4-inch
diameter sewer services (gas station, single bay car wash and
I future 4-bay car wash) flowing into the existing 6-inch PVC ser-
vice pipe. The 6-inch sanitary sewer service has been analyzed
to ensure that adequate capacity exists for each 4-inch diameter
I service. We find that the 6-inch sanitary sewer service will
accommodate the intended use.
I Both of the proposed and future car washes are located approxi-
mately 7 feet south of the existing sanitary sewer line. Although
the buildings are outside of the existing 15-foot utility ease-
ment, replacement of the sanitary sewer main would endanger the
I foundations of the building. It is recommended that the
buildings be moved to the south 5 feet to ensure the safety of
the buildings.
I
I
1
Planning Commission
November 10 , 1988
Page 2 '
The Minnesota Plumbing Code states that the sanitary sewer ser-
vices must have an inflammable waste separator prior to '
discharging into the public sanitary sewer main. Details for
the inflammable waste separator shall be submitted for approval
to the City Engineer prior to final approval. 1
Watermain
Municipal water service is available to the site from the 10-inch
diameter watermain which was constructed on Trunk Highway 101 as
part of the downtown reconstruction project. The plan accurately
shows the location of the two water services which were extended
to the property boundary. It should be noted that the services
that have been extended are 1-inch diameter services versus the
connection proposed for the buildings as a 1i-inch diameter water
service. It is recommended that the future proposed 4-bay self-
serve car wash obtain water service from the 8-inch diameter
watermain located adjacent to the northwest corner of the site.
This would reduce the length of service and provide a separate
service for the future 4-bay car wash.
Access
The site plan is proposing to have two driveways in the location
as they presently exist. The applicant should be aware that
MnDOT is proposing a center island along Trunk Highway 101 from
State Highway 5 to a point 400 feet north on 101 . This island,
as proposed, does not have any island cuts to permit a left-hand
turning movement from the Amoco site onto State Highway 101 . The
attached memo from MnDOT states that they will allow two entrances
to the Amoco site in their existing locations under the following
circumstances (refer to Attachment No. 1 ) :
1 . The applicants agree that they will reduce the number of
entrances and exits to one if the cut in the median for West
79th Street occurs.
2 . The new entrance will ine up with the centerline of the pro-
posed curb opening and West 79th Street.
The memorandum from Fred Hoisington, the City' s consultant,
states that the southerly entrance should be constructed as a
full movement access, and not the right-in conditions as shown on
the plans.
Since the proposed 400-foot long center island for State Highway
101 would also have an impact to the existing and anticipated
businesses along West 79th Street, staff and Fred Hoisington have
been working with MnDOT to review the possibility of getting a
center island cut which would be in line with the existing West
1
' Planning Commission
November 10 , 1988
Page 3
79th Street. If MnDOT would allow the center island a d cut, staff
would be recommending that the proposed entrance and exit for the
' Amoco site be limited to one which would fall in line with the
accepted island cut and West 79th Street. This would decrease
the number of traffic conflict points within this area.
The plan also proposes a curb radius on the northerly access from
the service station to State Highway 101 . The downtown construc-
t tion plans had originally called for this type of access to be
constructed as part of the Downtown Redevelopment project;
however, the plan was revised due to objection from the public to
include an open driveway apron to the car wash on the north.
' Plans should be submitted for approval which indicate the details
for finishing of the curb radius in this area prior to construc-
tion. The driveway constructed as part of the Downtown
Redevelopment is a monolithic slab which will be difficult to
change or make additions to.
It should also be noted that with the widening of Highway 5 ,
' MnDOT will require additional easement areas ( refer to Attachment
No. 1 ) .
' Grading and Drainage
The plans call for a 2-foot wide curb cut on the south side of
the property which will outlet drainage to the existing drainage
swale along State Highway 5 . This plan does not provide any pro-
tection from oil runoff from the proposed parking lot. It is
also likely that MnDOT will eliminate a portion of this drainage
' capacity through the widening of Highway 5 .
The westerly two-thirds of this site has been accommodated
through the Downtown Redevelopment drainage plan. It is
recommended that the plans be revised to incorporate a storm
sewer system which would drain into the City system and
ultimately through the City ' s downtown ponding site.
' Erosion Control
' The plans do not address erosion control . A revised erosion
control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to
final review.
Recommended Conditions
1 . The future addition of the 4-bay self-serve car wash is not
being considered at this time. Approval for this future
addition will require a separate review.
I
I
11
Planning Commission '
November 10 , 1988
Page 4
2 . The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco
Oil Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and
exits to the site to a total number of one if MnDOT grants
the City a median cut for the proposed island on State Trunk
Highway 101 . This entrance would fall directly in line with 11 the centerline of West 79th Street. The costs for the
reconstruction would be at Amoco' s sole expense. This state-
ment shall be provided to the City prior to final site plan
approval. '
3 . The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer
facilities which connect to the City' s storm sewer system.
The proposed curb cut near State Highway 5 will not be
accepted.
4 . A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City ,
Engineer for approval prior to final site plan approval.
5 . Details for the construction of the curb radius for the
northerly access will be provided for approval by the City
Engineer prior to final approval.
6 . The proposed buildings shall be moved five feet to the south ,
such that adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may
be provided.
Attachments
1 . Memo from MnDOT dated October 24 , 1988 . ,
I
i
I
1
I
I
00Or4 Minnesota 4I"l oz_v
tl
` ,,,Io_a Department of Transportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
4OF TS* Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612)593- F7
' October 24, 1988
iMs. Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Re: S. P. 1002-44 T.H. 5
Review of proposed Amoco Oil Company site plan
and Roman Roos site plan
' Dear Jo Ann,
I have reviewed the above referenced site plans and have the
following comments on each one:
Roman Roos Site Plan
' This proposed development is located just west of the
Mini Storage near Park Drive. At this time, it appears
that the additional construction for expansion of T.H.
5 will be south of the existing roadway. Based on our
preliminary plans and profile, we would expect to need
an additional 80 ' - 90 ' of right-of-way (see attached
plan) . We are assuming there will be no direct access
to T.H. 5 .
Amoco Site Plan
This development is located in the N.E. quadrant of
T.H. 5 and T.H. 101 . At the present time, the station
has two access points to T.H. 101 . The plan as
submitted proposes to maintain two access points,
however, the southerly one would be one-way off of T.H.
' 101 .
Our current preliminary plans for upgrading T.H. 5
include proposed work on inplace T.H. 101 which would
widen it and also include construction of a center
median. There would be no left turns allowed to these
entrances on W. 79th Street to the west. This is
Mn/DOT' s preferred plan.
Art Equal Opportunity Employer OCT 2 5 1988
t;11Y OF CHANf,ASSEN
1
I
Jo Ann Olsen
October 24 , 1988
Page 2
These preliminary plans will be submitted to the City
for review and approval . If it is determined that an
opening in the island is necessary , then the Amoco
Station would have to be served with one entrance
directly opposite W. 79th Street. - 1
It should also be noted that the proposed widening on
T.H. 101 may require additional right-of-way from the
Amoco site. It is too early in the planning stage to
determine the exact amount that will be needed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, ,
please feel free to call me.
Attachments : ( 2) I
Sincerely,
e7�
1
Evan R. Green
Project Manager I
I
I
1
1
1
I
y--- .IN MN 1111111 M - — MI ' MI IIMI MI EN MO MO INI IMI NM ----
,±; STATE HIGHWAY s
v 04
I■ d
r*
`' 328. 40 5.89°12'26" E. 5o�thQ, 11 R.0.W 1.:ne oC Nil�,.ay No. 5 -r
L= 14.07,
,►tarir2C'w. `N' 1 h 0 0206 ,
.28.17 _ \
o b
, v„go` � x) 3 L�M"r ,
,, . , ter ;
Vi`,
tTTIITTTI< </... . ,,.,NN P. ' ril --
/
N
A N 0, 4,
(0 ,1 . c0,
DLO :0 \�.
. , N -,.. .
ft n, W
'
. . -?' rll A
`C/ \
/ e
Q P ,
,(N., (•• ..., ,...... ,
■
• • 1
�.
3t B9 Sp
`` ,� 9c•
/0
,rt.' !ter !
(9( ''P' \ ° >---)
O b 1180 t 1 ��.
_ \\N\410 ) "'")-----------------.....,..... -------
fp � �
�
.
� .... .........4
°J-- PAIN i ED 'BUBBLE' �� \ I x is I
ue"�
�'�
r� A0 � '
�/-,/" _/"
crI Illi ..
��''�� Q., --r' 91H SCR --
/�_� � rte'1�
/�` / r I
L— I
t I ' '
. i i 2 i SHOPPI-SG- HALL
SS&� SHOiP s�LL
1 /rA f
c.�
—J `r---- 30'R 1 q, / --
I I c,440r I 13 4' Al ¶30.R
er - / A
2 1 HaIOAY i •301C_ h
. / ,11! t%44. muippo/4ft---- ,......e.„......7
o \ lig,0'4
3 /).11 : ji, .0.%... .. -,„v -
i co'' ,/14 '00000, ,... 0
-- , ice- ° '1; ,
,/. // /1101S`/�f'� 7i". .
'.
-------- ---' - ... ...441 . li5a/ 1113"
CITY OF
- x 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner
1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector (,1-
DATE: September 12, 1988
iSUBJ: Planning Case 88-11 Site Plan (Amoco)
One handicapped parking stall is required. Entire building and
1 approaches must be handicapped accessible.
North walls of car wash and self service car wash must be of 1
hour construction with protected openings.
1 Canopy is a B-1 occupancy. Convenience store is B-2 occupancy.
The area enclosed by the canopy must be separated from the B-2
1 occupancy by 1 hour occupancy separation wall. All openings must
be 1 hour assemblies.
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
CITY OF . I
\I ' CHANHASSEN
, _, - 1
\.,,s.
4. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Mark Littf in, Fire Inspector I
DATE: November 4 , 1988 1
SUBJ: Amoco Site Plan, File No. 88-11 Site Plan
After review of the site plan for the new Amoco Station, I find 1
the plans are acceptable and have no further comments at this
time.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
01- 1
I
I
I ' Hoisington Group Inc. ''``
Tf-, --)
I
Land Use Consultants October 20, 1988
I
I Ms. JoAnne Olson, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
IChanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Review of Amoco Site Plan dated October 6, 1988
IJoAnne:
II have reviewed the most recent Amoco Site Plan and conclude as
follows:
I1. We recommend that no more than one median cut be provided in
Great Plains Boulevard and that such median cut be located at
IWest 79th Street.
2. The Right-in only south entry to the Amoco station simply will not
I work. It will still serve all right and left-turn movements no
matter the skew. •
I 3. The south driveway entrance should remain in its present location
and move no closer to Hwy 5. F,
4. The northerly entrance to the Amoco station can be located as
desired b y Amoco.
,,I ,;1.1,; It is my recommendation that the City proceed, with the approval of ; �1+
"'3 :: I the Site Plan accordingly Amoco be put on notice and agree '' 'Ga{ t.,'`''
accordin 1 but that g !1...
{; in writing to one median cut at West 79th Street. If they wish to . ' 'i
move ahead under those circumstances and in full knowledge of the
City's position with respect to the median cut, we see no reason why
"
they should be delayed further in acquiring needed approvals. '
Y.{N,.' Sincerely,
---- W :1 -.
I Fred Hoisington i, ikc °
Consultant .. .a2,
x,..- r.: _-:: %',: ,:.;!
I 7300 Metro Blvd 1988 ? -:
Suite 525 .° °:1
Edina.MN 55435 <i. •.- ; . . ;,, 4a .,
(612)835-9960 . , CITY OF CHANHASS �l ' .�q.,
ESOTg Minnesota GD5
Dle:1 Department of Transportation
District 5
y40 2055 No. Lilac Drive
OF TO. Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 '
(612)593- 8917
October 24 , 1988 ,
Ms . Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner '
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: S.P. 1002-44 T.H. 5
Review of proposed Amoco Oil Company site plan
and Roman Roos site plan
Dear Jo Ann, '
I have reviewed the above referenced site plans and have the
following comments on each one:
Roman Roos Site Plan
This proposed development is located just west of the '
Mini Storage near Park Drive. At this time, it appears
that the additional construction for expansion of T.H.
5 will be south of the existing roadway. Based on our
preliminary plans and profile, we would expect to need
an additional 80 ' - 90' of right-of-way (see attached
plan) . We are assuming there will be no direct access
to T.H. 5 .
Amoco Site Plan '
This development is located in the N.E. quadrant of
T.H. 5 and T.H. 101 . At the
present time, the station
has two access points to T.H. 101 . The plan as
submitted proposes to maintain two access points,
however, the southerly one would be one-way off of T.H.
101 . '
Our current preliminary plans for upgrading T.H. 5
include proposed work on inplace T.H. 101 which would
widen it and also include construction of a center
median. There would be no left turns allowed to these
entrances on W. 79th Street to the west. This is
Mn/DOT' s preferred plan.
An Equal Opportunity Employer OCT 2 5 1988
i;1 FY OF CHANHASSEN I
I,
I
Jo Ann Olsen
I October 24 , 1988
Page 2
I These preliminary plans will be submitted to the City
for review and approval . If it is determined that an
opening in the island is necessary , then the Amoco
Station would have to be served with one entrance
Idirectly opposite W. 79th Street.
It should also be noted that the proposed widening on
I T.H. 101 may require additional right-of-way from the
Amoco site. It is too early in the planning stage to
determine the exact amount that will be needed.
I If you have any questions or need additional information,
please feel free to call me.
IAttachments : ( 2 )
Sincerely,
IZ.V7A----- 1
Evan R. Green
IProject Manager
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
II
; HIGHWAY,+
STATE
v
UN lIN
,1.
' R.O.W. Lew, N� ti r No. 5 ~
`, 3 28. 40 5.89°12'26" E. 5°�t►,a, iY R. y w� _ - - -
°o L= 14.07,-;'
N.$9'12'2 'W. N 110°02'06 ,',
.28.I-vs.
7 b n �f� 37Z to A.,rr
■ vi i—„N.... ..0
....i. . . ,N , . -,0'
G ,
�^) <v oil
Al N (0- to 4
N r\I :.... N ..\\y
ry ` 4
N %,f '' .
nr, 7'
i 0/ / kJCI 1 , ,
G /
P
Q '
/ ,
, ;(,,..,,‘ , ...,, ,
ti
�• u
9 s> o
ME - NM - 11111 ME - NM I - - - MN NM 111111,
YV 9?
• i
o �` b 1180 I I /
L
—-w.)------'--"----- ..- ;
*‘ - lk,\\;:dill ,I
I )% NI.\\.\ r I
,s, ,.. \ ...-
, ----
L______---- ...„,,,. .„-------- .
, .....
70 . \ ....-
, , ,, ___---------- ....----
t-, —-- ---
PAINTED 'BUBBLE' \ I �X�s ///
\ sue' I// �-�•�
I - - �\ ° .O r�
. •■•••""... V".la .,--,
i--- ,.... in .....1
..••• , - r. .
,---'--------- ----"-L--7.Tit----
_r_______- _..--c_1
I I ~ 1 1 Ili.
1 2 SHOPP1 I Sv MALL SHO5 tL 1
SS 0.- I 11
i 5011
.Si'� H--- __ Ti I N
r ---___ . ( --4I ' liel I
....•■■•••■ — j c
I L c��9°r I �34' /I •'30�R er ° E
1 L 1 i, ° � '� • -0#1 i 1 . " ‘. 4 ,
2 1 is I i 3 0 C' , '6%
o 1 Wilisigi- - /.:,,,,,,
WI"lip- .,,,/- o
CO
./ c e / ff�
1 ,/ �
Alor- -/00 is/r ,,,, A0,.... 1
I _______:::...5:...---.--.----':: - .„.-- . 0 10,� a /111`/r;7f�0 R I '
,,Aa.go`0/17 A PT.24 RT
, , �,,I._ `.' 1.1 / `eG�j
• r �� II 1' / 0
i i /.i� ' ud/ ' 1 I
___
I 1
, ., N' ./__ ----------1 ' .q.C‘? 1 1I 1
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900 '
APPLICANT: Amoco Oil Company OWNER: Amoco Oil Company
ADDRESS 5001 W. 80th Street, # 890 ADDRESS 5001 W. 80th Street, # 890
Bloomington, MN 55437 Bloomington, MN 55437
Zip Code - Zip Code II
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) (612) 831-7520 TELEPHONE (612) 831-7520
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision '
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
xxxxx Site Plan Review
WetJ ands Permit
PROJECT NAME
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial '
PRESENT ZONING "BH" Highway & Business Services District
REQUESTED ZONING "BH" Highway & Business Service District
USES PROPOSED Motor Fuel Station W/Convenience Store & Carwashes ____ _
SIZE OF PROPERTY 1.16 Acres — '
LOCATION N.E Corner State HWY #5 & State HWY # 101 '
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST To allow for razing & rebuilding the facility
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) see Attached
IF
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
' Page 2
' FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
' FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
Signed By .
C,/ -- � Date
Applicant _
' The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
•
Signed Bye �, u, -c/C?,- r.,,, u Date
Fee Ow 7d4 //' /c7 e
' - Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
' City Receipt No.
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
I
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION I
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 1988
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
I
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
I
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst.
City Engineer i
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
I
STATION ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND TH 101, AMOCO.
Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report.
Jim Fillipi : My name is Jim Fillipi . I 'm with Northstar Engineering II consultants and representing Amoco Oil Company. I believe we have been
able to work with the staff and the city regarding the driveways and
position and the unresolved issues from last time in which we were before
you. We feel that all of the conditions with the exception of one that is I
contained in the staff recommendation are acceptable and we'd like to
address the one. We'd specifically like to deal with and that is the
signage on the canopy. We will agree to eliminating the one food shop II sign that is on the north side. There will be just the two building signs
on the building. Each of those would be approximately 9.4 square feet in
size. The ordinance as we read it or as shown in the front , would permit
to. . .have a wall sign that could go as high as 50% of the wall area or up
to 80 square feet which would be. . .150 square feet of illuminated sign on
the building. We are not proposing any illuminated signs along the
building . . . . from some of the others that you have seen. Mentioned in
the staff report is how the name to direct, for example, is being, sites
that do not have canopy signs but at the same time those sites will have
in excess of 80 square feet of illuminate wall signage that is visible I
from the street right-of-way. The signage that is on these two signs is
not illuminated in this proposal . In fact, the three canopy signs
totaling approximately 35 square feet, they' re 11. 6 square feet each,
would be the only illuminated signs on the entire building or canopy at
I
night . If those were removed , there would be nothing other than the
single pylon sign that would be illuminated to identify that a business is
there. We feel that trading 160 square feet of signage for approximately I
35 square feet can be a reasonable trade-off and that there is
justification for it . If you have any other questions , we can answer
them. We've gone through and dealt with the staff report and the
I_ individual conditions and have no other comments .
Conrad: Okay, thanks. We' ll probably have some questions for you in a
few seconds. Any other comments from people over here? Dave, do you want
to start it out?
Headla : Larry brought up one point and that leads to another one. You I
had in the memo and the contents about the plumbing code. When Larry
writes recommendations and some, through an oversight , don' t get included
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 16, 1988 - Page 2
Iin a recommendation, do they even become part of the record?
Conrad: At this point in time they will. As soon as we read them in.
IHeadla: Okay, but we' ve got to read them into the recommendations
A.Conrad: Yes. We don' t have to take Larry' s recommendation. 4 >:.
I Headla : He had a ood point on this p is plumbing one and that started me .�.
thinking. Well gee, what if we just happened to miss it. At least for _,..,�
1 myself, I have to y go through these recommendations a lot more careful from `
all the others. - .
IBrown: In this instance, I realize this isn' t a blanket statement for any recommendation that's missing in the report but for this instance, this
would be required as part of the commercial building permit and be
I contingent upon meeting these requirements before they receive a
Certificate of Occupancy. Our plumbing inspector is very efficient at
requiring to follow the State Plumbing Code. He has done a very good job
in making sure these are enforced.
IHeadla : Can we rely on the staff then to highlight something that might
have been overlooked? At times we don' t go through detail on every one of
I these things. If we miss some point, can we rely on you and the safety
director to highlight something in case it is overlooked?
Brown: We try and proofread these before they go out but in the instance
Ithat something is missed, usually we' ll be going through and preparing for
the meetings and rereading the reports to make sure that everything is in
there, yes.
IJim Fillipi : We can, if that would suit your convenience, the car wash
plans are standard plans. They do include a flammable waste trap and we
I can provide a copy of those to the staff report prior to the Council
meeting.
I Headla : I was just looking at the principle. When SuperAmerica proposed
the place on TH 7, did we evaluate Amoco on the same rules that we used
for SuperAmerica like selling items out front? They've got a convenience
store. It seems like if we've got rules for this one, we've got to use
Ithe same rules for the next one.
Olsen: Right. That' s correct. The difference between the two was that
I the SuperAmerica was a conditional use permit. Some of those were
conditions of the conditional use permit. . .but those are conditions that
could easily be added to this site.
I Headla : It just seems like signage. Some of the products out front . Any
of those things should apply evenly across the board. The one I have a
hard time with , he offered an alternative to the canopy. Do you have any
comments on that?
�
' P
ti=•:
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 3
Olsen: The ordinance does permit them to have a wall signs. . . Again, '
we've been pretty consistent with not allowing the gas canopy signs
but . . .as a trade off.
Headla : I 'm uncomfortable with trade-offs only from the point of view
that it appears to be inconsistent. I 'd like to hear comments from the
rest of the commission to see how they feel on that. The rest of it , I II think you've been very up front with what MnDot is willing to do and how
they make their decision. I think it' s up to them. As long as they
understand the. . .that' s laid before them. When we go to make the Al
recommendation, I would like to see something about selling products out
front like SuperAmerica. That we treat them the same way. That' s all I
have.
•
Conrad : We don' t have that as a standard, the selling of products . That 1
was a condition because primarily the neighborhood up there. It' s not
really set into any standard that we can apply them but it is something
that we can talk about. I don't know that there' s an inconsistency
between how we handle here and there. I don' t know that we' re treating
them unfairly one way or another.
Headla : I guess I 'm raising a question more and opening it for
discussion. I haven' t really decided on it but I wanted to raise the
question. I think it' s important we do treat them similar . . . .why they II
aren' t treated similar , fine.
Wildermuth: I think this application is different from the SuperAmerica
application as far as selling merchandise out on the apron is concerned.
This is not in a neighborhood setting. The SuperAmerica application was
an exception. Two things bother me a little bit. We don' t know how much
land MnDot is going to need for widening TH 5 so I don' t know how we can
position or how the building can be positioned at this point.
Olsen: In the case of TH 5, they have adequate right-of-way.
Batzli : In MnDot' s letter they talked about TH 101 might be widened.
Wildermuth: Right. TH 101. ,
Olsen : The problem we have with that is that we can not require the
applicant, ieven if we knew how much additional. this is just a site II
plan and does not require us to look at that. That will have to be. . .
condemnation. . .MnDot or the City were to take over TH 101 at that time.
Wildermuth: What in your estimation will come first Jo Ann? The 1
upgrading of the roadway or the construction. . .
Olsen: Construction of the site I 'm sure will come first.
Wildermuth: It just seems like we' re kidding ourselves if we don' t that
that into account at this point while there ' s still an opportunity.
,44
I.
Planning Commission Meeting
INovember 16, 1988 - Page 4
1 Olsen: They understand that additional right-of-way will be. . . It' s not
really going to, we've been hearing 11 feet, 14 feet and it will impact
I more the landscaping than it will impact the building itself. The
setbacks will be reduced. It' s similiar to what happened with the new
storage facility on TH 5. They constructed a storage facility right where
that will be taking property but again. . . If they had platted the
Iproperty, you could require them to dedicate the additional right-of-way.
Wildermuth: I guess if I could ask the applicant, do you plan to take
that into account? The additional . . . _w-
Jim Fillipi : There is approximately 15 feet between the front edge of the
canopy and the current right-of-way set us back at 25 feet so even if that
II were moved another 15 feet, you would still have, and with the single
driveway going in, you would still have a totally conforming building and
canopy as far as the setback goes and as a good circulation route around
Ithe pumps and the building.
Wildermuth: That would bring the roadway that much closer though. That
I is assuming that they allow a single cut through the median. That would
bring the roadway that much closer to the pumps , the one island .
Jim Fillipi : We think that with the adoption of the 2A alternate and the
I shifting of the traffic volume from TH 101 to TH 5, that will
substantially reduce the need for the widening and additional lanes in TH
101 at this location. North of the railroad tracks , you' re sitting with
I one lane in each direction and then in this location you would not need to
take additional property to provide two lanes . . .and then if there are
median cuts. There may be some but with the 2A alternative adoption, we
think the pressure for additional right-of-way is substantially reduced .
IWildermuth: I guess the other point that I have is that I don' t see
satisfaction of the hardship test for a sign variance . That' s all I have.
IBatzli : I thought we talked at length last time about access along the
north part of this piece of property someplace. Do you recall that at
all?
I
Olsen: The Gary Brown car wash?
IConrad : That ' s the car wash . That' s Gary' s car wash and that ' s separate.
Batzli : Separate deal . Then I don' t have any questions on that. I guess
I I was curious about the two future gas pumps , extension of the gas canopy.
What factors do you look at for not deferring that for review process?
Why did you decide that wasn' t a problem now?
I Olsen: In review of the site plan, it would still meet all the setbacks
and the circulation was still adequate. . .
I Batzli : I was just curious what factors you looked at. I didn' t have an
opinion one way or another myself.
Y".
.r
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 5
II
IIOlsen: How it impacted the site plan itself whereas the separate car wash
was. . .
Batzli : What percentage of the parcel right here is impervious? Do you II
know? Is there any hope at all that that future addition will ever be put
in?
Olsen: It can go up to 70%. II
Jim Fillipi : We' re currently 57% is landscaping and in the future it
would go to, if the future addition was put in, it would go to 35% '
landscaping and 65% impervious under the future addition. Currently right
now you have 43% impervious .
IIBatzli : In condition 7, Larry, is this your condition? The tank for used
oil?
Olsen: No, it' s mine. I
Batzli : Was there some specific tank that you would turn into to have
them install?
II
Olsen: The City has been trying to establish locations that the public
can take used oil . Amoco offered to provide the tank facility for that.
II
Batzli : I guess I was just looking at the wording that you provided
there. Shall provide the tank for used oil. What you' re really looking II
for is a waste oil receptacle?
Olsen: Yes and they are showing that on the site plan and making it clear
that it' s going to be there. 1
Batzli : I guess my right-of-way question goes away. In looking at the
signs, I don' t know that there' s a hardship for a variance and I don' t II know that the applicant has really provided us with, did show that there
is one other than they want it and it' s a good trade-off. I 'm really not
in favor of it at this time.
II
Ellson: My first reaction to this is , I don ' t feel we need another
convenience store. I think we have Kenny' s and we have Holidy right
across the street and Brooke ' s just up and we ' re planning a PDQ. We' re
II
soon going to be Chanhassen, the home of the Dinner Theater and
convenience stores . Come on in. But this is their property and I realize
from the standpoint of operating a business , this is the way it' s going .
II
I 'd like a nice service station there. I think that' s what we need in
Chanhassen but they can certainly do with their property what they want
and I think as far as adding another convenience store, I can' t really
stop all that. I agree with Dave regarding the display of outdoor
II
merchandise on the sidewalk is a good one to add to this. Maybe we
haven' t done it always in the past but I think it would be a good thing to
add to convenience stores and this type of thing from maybe this day '
forward or even since the SuperAmerica forward because I think that can be
a nuisance when you' re going in and out of a store like that and I don' t
1.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 6
think it looks nice. I think the location more than compensates this
location for competing with Brooke' s. I don' t necessarily go along with
the square footage comparison of Brooke' s to this one . If we' re going to
compare how you' re going to compete, you 've got a location over them by a
mile so I really think that you've got an edge in other areas where maybe
they don' t. The square footage of sign isn' t equal . That really doesn' t
' concern me and I don' t think that it ' s worth allowing the canopy signage.
Emmings: On number 3, it' s the condition where they have to combine into
' a central access with the center median when the cut across from West 79th
is installed. I think we should probably add a sentence to that, unless
there ' s already some provision that plans for the central access should be
reviewed and approved by the City Staff before construction. I don ' t
' know, would that be done automatically?
Olsen: . . .that could be. . .
' Emmings : Okay. Then in number 12, it says proposed buildings will be
moved 5 feet to the south. We' re only talking about the car wash there.
We' re not talking about the store itself are we?
Jim Fillipi : I think we'd move the entire site.
Emmings: That' s all done?
Jim Fillipi : Just to maintain the separate between the car wash and the
' pumps. There is sufficient room to move it.
Emmings: I was just going to add the car wash . . . I just have, for my own
information Larry, water from the car wash goes into the sanitary sewer?
' Brown: Maybe the applicant can address a portion of this but normally
what happens is that they are charged sewer area charges by the amount of.
' water that they use. Most often in this type of installation, they will
install a water recycler to cut down on the charges that they have to pay
to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Unless the plan has
' changed, I 've been told that they are planning on doing that but the final
affect is yes, it will go into the sanitary sewer .
Emmings: What are the considerations there in terms of where, why do you
want waste water from the car wash to go into the sanitary sewer? Because
it might have oils and grease and soaps?
Brown: Soaps become a large problem. Obviously you wouldn' t want the
detergents flowing into the wetlands or lakes so it almost dictates that
it goes into the sanitary sewer .
Emmings: Would it matter what kinds of soaps you use? I don' t know. I 'm
just curious.
' Brown : It would really create a poor situation with nutrient stripping
which we depend on within the ponding arears and sedimentation areas.
That would foul things up.
I,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 7 1
I
Jim Fillipi : The car wash is using recycled water . We have gone to a
high pressure, low volume. It takes approximately 18 gallons to go
through a car wash. Previous history with the Waste Control Commission
II
has been. . .units for the rollover car washes so that' s the type of volume
of water we' re specifically talking about in terms of rollovers.
Emmings: While you' re up there, if I could ask you a question. You've
heard a couple people talk about merchandise stored outside of the
building for sale. Do you plan to do that?
I
Jim Fillipi : The only place that we would have available for doing that
would be just in a small sidewalk area in front because the sides of the
sidewalk and the building must be cleared for the handicapped access. So '
just the design of the layout of the facility does not lend itself to
stacking merchandise on the sidewalk. We normally would not have a
problem with a condition like that. Otherwise, a case of pop, whatever II would be placed out in front.
Emmings: What would be your reaction to a condition that there not be
Imerchandise stored outside for display or sale?
Jim Fillippi : I don' t think it would have a major impact.
Emmings: Then my only other question is on canopy signs. I 've been here
through at least 3 canopies and I know you' ve never allowed a sign on a
canopy and I 'm not sure why. We don' t have anything in our sign ordinance ,
about it.
Olsen: The sign ordinance does not really permit them.
Emmings: It doesn' t allow them but it doesn't say you can' t have them I
either .
Olsen: Exactly. It' s just been sort of past policy. I
Emmings: Right. Now we've done that with the last 3. I know we' ve said
no signs on the canopies and then we've made that stick. Do we have any I
canopies in Chanhassen with signs on them?
Olsen: We have Q-Superette who has changed to Total . We allowed . . .two
II
sides.
Emmings: Now why did we allow that?
I
Olsen: They' re clustered . . .
Emmings : So we don' t really have a rationale here to apply? That' s all
II
I 've got. I don' t know what to do about the canopy signs. I think that's
a tough one. If we' ve allowed it in the past when people have asked for
it but it seems to me that other people have wanted it and we've said no. II
a tl I,
._ . . _
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' November 16, 1988 - Page 8
' Erhart : Let me get this straight. We do allow pylon signs . The issue of
signs on canopies , I just don' t know how many signs you really need. If
you have a pylon sign, wall signs , it just adds more visual garbage there.
' I think we offer enough signs . I realize that when someone new comes down
the highway they have to be able to identify what it is but I think it' s
adequate. The existing pylon sign, how tall is that?
Jim Fillipi : It was built at about 24 feet for height . The key is that
we do not have any illuminated building sign and in the evening hours, the
' only illumination that is done is the Amoco along the canopy. Typically
around the Twin City areas, food shops and homes are not lit at night. . .
Erhart : The pylon will be lit. My question is, if you only allow a 20
foot pylon sign, this is a 24 foot height.
Olsen: They' re going to change. . .
' Erhart : So even though they' re coming in with a whole new site plan, and
I 'm not suggesting that. . .
Olsen : They' re going to change it a little bit.
Erhart: Help me again to understand , what' s the trade-off on signs? I
' know you' re proposing to have more signage than what' s permitted but what
is this trade-off you' re talking about?
' Jim Fillipi : The ordinance permits 80 square feet of signage per street
frontage.
Erhart: Maximum.
' Jim Fillipi : Maximum. Or 50% of the wall area . We have more than
sufficient wall area to obtain 80 square feet on two sides of the building
t that we' ve currently eliminated . The total area that we' re asking for on
three sides of the canopy, each of the ACM' s has an area of 11. 65 square
feet and at that point we' re about 35 square feet in terms of the word
' Amoco and that' s a trade-off of 160 square feet for 35 square feet.
Erhart: If that' s what it is , I guess I would agree with most of the
other conditions. I just don ' t feel that it ' s necessary to have all that
signage and would like to maintain the existing ordinance and apply it
here. I don' t have a problem with outside goods as long as it' s kept
alongside the building . What I wouldn' t want to see is to have materials
' out by the street.
Jim Fillipi : We ' ve never put it out there. . .
Erhart: But when business gets tough and like you say, you get too many
gas stations and stores in town, sometimes you get creative marketing
ideas so, I personally don' t have a problem with the materials as long as
it' s alongside. Otherwise, I like the plan. I think it would be an
improvement to that entrance.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 9 1
Conrad : A couple questions . Jo Ann , you want, I 'm struggling with why we II
want a right-in. The southerly access, you didn' t like the way it was
proposed as a right-in only and a no right out . I 'm curious why staff
does not like that. 1
Olsen: Mostly it came from engineering and Larry can speak to that and
also Fred Hoisington and BRW will confirm that the way it 's designed was
similar to like. . .not designed well . People still coming to out. He just
felt that the way it was designed it was going to be more of a conflict. . .
Conrad : There' s a good chance there' s going to be a center island or a
divider. I kind of like how that' s structured. I like the right-in the
way it is . Although I understand that people will try to get out there
too. Larry, what' s your thought on that? Obviously you had some input.
Brown: We had, not knowing MnDot ' s position fully the last time this came
through the Planning Commission, I had suggested or rather in trying to
work with this and compromise , had suggested the right-in only. We said
that we would take a look at that as an alternative. Part of the problem
is , as Jo Ann mentioned , down at Q-Superette we do have a similiar type of
situation where we tried to restrict traffic movements. MnDot' s policy is
well established in that they don' t care for these islands because when
somebody, let' s take in this case, if somebody were to try and go against
the intended flow, they actually create a bigger traffic hazard trying to II
get around the obstacle that we 've placed than if they were to have a full
movement intersection and just take the right hand turn. So you almost,
by trying to fix the solution, you almost create a larger hazard out
there.
Conrad : So there' s no scenario where you can imagine that this would be
appropriate? 1
Brown: I can' t rule it out as a total never situation but it' s uses are
limited. In this instance I would definitely recommend that be a full
movement intersection.
Conrad : Is that a detached car wash on the northern part of this? And
then north of that is another car wash. Then to the east we' re going to
have some more car washes . Do we have any control on creating a little
car wash neighborhood here? I don' t know that there' s a significant need
for another car wash next to another car wash . I see a very marginal 1
utility.
Olsen: There ' s nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit the number of 1
car washes.
Conrad : So we don' t have any control , in this particular case Jo Ann?
It' s not a conditional use so we really are locked out of saying why are
we putting that there.
Olsen: I don' t know if we can speak. . .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 10
Jim Fillipi : I don ' t know what the future will hold on the future of car
washes. The car wash to the north and the car wash that we' re proposing
are for essentially two different types of customers . The one that ' s
' going in on this site is a roll over. You can stay inside of the car .
It' s a drive thru one meaning that you do not get out and detail the car,
do the drying or do the hand washing so it 's a two different market.
' There ' s a situation in Brooklyn Park in which there is an Amoco facility
with the rollover car wash and after we were in, a full service with dryer
and detailer , that went into the north of that. And to the north of that
is a self service wash at the same time and all three are doing quite well
in that area because they serve different markets .
Conrad : Okay, I ' ll buy that.
Batzli : Where do we find out if this is a brushless car wash? It does
have brushes? Install an obsolete car wash, I don' t know.
Conrad : I 'm with Tim. I don' t have a problem with outside storage of
merchandise as long as it' s controlled .
Headla : What do you mean , as long as it ' s controlled?
Conrad: As long as we ' re not putting it all over . In other words, if
it ' s at the front of his store, underneath a sheltered area, like most
SuperAmericas are. Right by their door, I just don' t have a problem with
that kind of merchandise .
Headla: How do you control just that amount?
Conrad : You say it' s limited to those 4 feet that surrounds your
' building. There' s an easy way to do it .
Headla : To me the problem is how do you really control it .
Conrad: If you mean monitoring, yes that ' s a problem but if you say you
can display merchandise within the 2 doors , entry and exit doors or
whatever, for those 4 feet between them. I think you can locate where that
merchandise can be displayed . Like we did to the garden center , where
they wanted to display their tractors , we did the same thing there. We
said you can present your tractors . . .
' Headla : We did control that , yes . What about that one over here? Did we
control that on merchandise?
Emmings: I don' t think it came up.
Conrad: That didn' t come up.
Emmings: I don ' t think anybody thought of it. The first time we thought
of it really was with the SuperAmerica.
Conrad : That would be a different situation because that ' s part of a
shopping center and then I 'd kind of react differently. But as a stand
yY
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 11 '
alone , self contained unit , I think visually this stuff is away from the II
traffic.
Wildermuth: And it ' s not in the neighborhood . ,
Conrad: And it' s not in the neighborhood. It' s in a business area so I
don' t have a problem. In fact , I actually do like that merchandise. They II
typically merchandise stuff that' s needed. It may be salt pellets. It
may be charcoal . It may be Coke . It may be a convenience to people and I
don' t have a problem with that. As long as it' s not abused and typically
good operators like Standard or Amoco or SuperAmerica, they're good
merchants. They typically don' t abuse those priviledges. So anyway,
that' s my comment there. I don' t know, whoever makes the motion has the
power here. I don' t see a hardship on the signs although it does bring
out some interesting points. I think if we' re going to administer canopy
signage a certain way rather than not talking about it , I think our
ordinance should talk about them. Which therefore, I think the bottom II line tonight for me is to not allow them to do it but also to open it up
and take a look and see if that' s the way we want it. More than likely I
feel comfortable excluding it but I guess I 'd like to see staff review it '
and present it to us and City Council so we can make an active decision
versus probably no decision that we've had in the past on canopy signage.
Maybe Pat Swenson had some thoughts back then. Right now Jo Ann I 'd sure
like your work. The other thing that I heard was illuminated versus nan-
illuminated and I think that ' s an interesting situation too. At least for
us to review. See if there' s a difference. Those are my only comments ;
Anything else? Is there a motion?
Headla: Let me make a motion but let me comment first. I 'm going to
recommend that we go along with item 6 and my rationale for that is, until
we can adopt a policy on canopies, I 'd like to see them all treated the •
same. If we approve this , why can' t every single one come back in? I 'd
kind of like to see us be able to handle it before we go with it. I 'd
like to make a motion that we approve Site Plan Review #88-11 with the
conditions recommended by staff . Then I 'd like to include in that, item II
13, the one about the plumbing code. Larry I think was the one who can
put in appropriate words there.
Brown: The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste
separater to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of
building permit. ,
Headla : You convinced me about the products out front.
Erhart: Second. 1
Ellson : I want the thing about the displays . They' ve already said they
don' t mind. They' re not going to object. If SuperAmerica agrees that
they' ve gotten this before and they don' t object to taking it off , I think
that it' s becoming a real nuisance to people and I think these stores know
that and that' s why they' re always bending on this issue. I think if we II had a bunch of people in, they'd all say we don' t like it , like me. . .he' s
-'
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 12
1 already said they wouldn ' t strongly oppose it and I don ' t know why we ' re
trying to be. . .
' Conrad : I 'm not trying to be a good guy. I 'm just saying, it ' s a
convenience. When you think of what' s displayed outside.
Ellson: But you can ' t even get outside parking. You can only go in that
one little area where the door is. You have to walk on the street the
whole time and dodge cars and you can ' t get up on the sidewalk. That
' drives me crazy.
Batzli : Where am I going to buy my salt pellets though?
' Ellson: They' ll have them in there.
Emmings: I agree with Annette. The issue was brought up on the
' SuperAmerica station. Partly because of the neighborhood but partly just
because I always thing that' s kind of a junky looking part of these kinds
of storage places. To me it' s one of their worse features . Just
' aesthetically. I remember asked him what he felt about it and he didn' t
care. They didn' t care so we put that into the conditions. Now we've
just asked him and he doesn ' t. . .
' Jim Fillipi : We do care. . .
Emmings : But there was no strong objection.
Conrad: They would have done anything.
Headla : Who would have?
' Conrad : SuperAmerica would have done anything that wasn ' t a big
sacrifice.
' Emmings : But I don ' t know why we want to see a bunch of pop and salt
pellets stacked outside.
' Conrad : I don ' t think you do but . . .
Emmings: You' re talking about controlling it but the motion doesn' t put
' anything in controlling it whatsoever .
Headla: What about that. . .right across the street?
' Emmings : But here' s the deal. At that time that that thing was approved,
we weren ' t thinking about it. That was not an issue on that. It was
never raised to us. It should have been raised to us here by the staff,
in my opinion, because when they' re looking at this one I think they ought
go back and look at what we did at the other ones and tell us what we did.
I wrote it down over on this one because I remembered it from SuperAmerica
' but then like Jo Ann points out, that was a conditional use permit where
this is a permitted use. But as far as whether we have to do it here.
Almost every issue we take changes over time and if we use the rationale
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 13
II
that we approved it once so we have to approve it forever , we' d still be I
doing things, we could be painting on the roof of a cave or something. I
don ' t know. Things change over time, that ' s all . We changed it with
SuperAmerica. Now the question is do we want to continue to do that as a
policy or not? I guess a lot of people here, at least think in this
zoning area, we don' t. I guess I do.
Ellson: And maybe this one is just a small part but the next one that
comes in will have a huge sidewalk and then you' ll it will be. . . I 've
just got to say no across the board . I
Emmings: And there' s nothing in this motion that permits any control
whatsoever .
Conrad : Do you want to amend your motion Dave to include that kind of II
control?
Headla : I really haven ' t seen any compelling arguments . I keep thinking I
about across the street and if we want to come up and say, this is going
to be our policy.
Ellson: You brought it up in the first place. You said we just had II
SuperAmerica.
Headla : I brought it up and I wanted to hear some arguments on both ways II
and I was really leaning that we shouldn' t have it but then as I heard the
discussion , I thought no . They' re right , I think I 'm leaning the other
II
way.
Wildermuth: I like the whole idea . I 've got a bad back so I can just
drive by car right up next to it and throw the salt pellets and that case II
of oil right in the back. That' s great .
Conrad: I don' t find anything wrong with it. Say the SuperAmerica down
II
on TH 4 and TH 5. You don' t even see it. It' s a matter , it can get out
of hand. Bad merchants can abuse that. Good mechants don' t. They know
how to merchandise and they all do an effective job. I respect the lack
of polluting, the visual too so I agree that we don' t want to do that.
II
That' s the reason we have the sign ordinance.
Headla: Let' s talk a little bit about how you _would control. Maybe there I
is some means for that.
Ellson: But then who ' s going to moniter some of these controls?
II
Headla: Maybe somebody' s got some constructive ideas that you could do
that.
Erhart : Just require that any outside merchandise has to be stacked II
within 4 feet of the perimeter of the building and it has to be in the
front or 6 feet. I
Headla : To me that probably would be certainly acceptable.
II
I'
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 14
Batzli : I can icture it if '
P f zt s a conditional use but this is a site
' plan. What are you going to do if they don' t comply, yank their site?
Emmings : I have one other thing . I 'd like to amend , I mentioned it if
anybody thinks it' s important. On number 3, that the plans for that
' central access should be reviewed and approved by the City staff prior to
construction.
Conrad : Would you like to amend your motion Dave to include that?
Headla: Yes .
' Erhart : Yes .
Conrad : Thank you for seconding that Tim.
Emmings: The only other thing, is 6 clear to everybody where it says, the
gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage, including the Amoco stripe
' name. Can that be read to say that it would allow signage that didn' t
include the Amoco name?
Batzli : I think it' s including without limitation, the Amoco stripe.
Jim Fillipi : We can put the red , white and blue stripe on the canopy, not
the name is what you' re saying?
Conrad : I would have to assume that ' s true because that ' s really design.
I don' t think we' re into design stuff. We shouldn' t be. Okay, you
haven' t decided to amend your motion in terms of control .
' Wildermuth: I don' t think we should. I think if there' s an intent, that
there ' s thinking that we should control outdoor merchandising in these
' places, we ought to write it into the ordinance.
Headla : I haven ' t seen Amoco , anyplace that I 'd say was really a schlauck
outfit.
Ellson: It ' s not that we' re worried about . . .
' Emmings: You all said that SuperAmerica was a very well run outfit too
but we didn ' t let them have it.
' Conrad: But that was a conditional use.
Batzli : And a neighborhood .
Emmings : The rationale here is very muddy.
Ellson: Let the Council grapple over it.
' Conrad: Yes. They' re the ones that get paid.
1
,,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16 , 1988 - Page 15 '
Headla moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend '
approval of Site Plan Review #88-11 with the following conditions :
1. The self service car wash will require site plan approval . 1
2. The two future gas pumps and extension of the gas canopy are approved
as part of this site plan. '
3. The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco Oil
Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and exits to the
site to a total number of one if MnDot grants the City a median cut
for the proposed island on TH 101. This entrnace would fall directly
in line with the centerline of West 79th Street. The costs for the
reconstruction would be at Amoco' s sole expense. This statement shall
be provided to the City prior to final site plan approval . Plans for
central access shall be reviewed and approved by the City Staff prior
to construction.
4. The most southerly access shall not be located further south than the
existing southerly access and shall be designed for full traffic
movement (right-in and right-out) . '
5. The convenience store shall be permitted only two wall signs.
6. The gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage including the Amoco I
stripe name.
7. The applicant shall provide the tank for used oil and shall allow it '
to be open to the public.
8. The applicant shall remove the cars , trucks , etc . , stored on the
easterly portion of the site.
9. The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer
facilities which connect to the City' s storm sewer system. The
proposed curb cut near TH 5 will not be accepted .
10. A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer II
for approval prior to final site plan approval .
11. Details for the construction of the curb radius for the northerly
access will be provided for approval by the City Engineer prior to
final approval .
12. The proposed buildings shall be moved 5 feet to the south such that
adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may be provided .
13. The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste separater ,
to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of building
permit.
All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried . ,
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 16, 1988 - Page 16
Emmings : I think the plan is fine and I only want to make sure that the
issue of the outside storage and sale of merchandise is raised to the
Council . That' s the only reason I 'm voting it down.
' Conrad: So Jo Ann, there are two issues that are coming up, that
g p, should
be put on work que someplace. They may not be done by you for the next
' month.
Olsen : Outside storage?
Conrad: Outside storage, yes .
' PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE FACED PYLON SIGN (5 ' X 10 ' ) FOR METRO LAKES
WEST MINI-STORAGE ON PROPETY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED
AT 7800 PARK DRIVE, MARCUS CORPORATION.
Public Present :
Mark Senn - Applicant
Roman Roos - Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Mark Senn : If I could start by possibly correcting something that.' s
' already been mentioned twice tonight. Where our building was built , it
was not built within the right-of-way for the expansion of TH 5. That is
an issue that you addressed prior to the approval of the mini-storage
' project. At that point the State had no specific location for the highway
but we knew it was an issue we had to address . Prior to approval of the
project we had three meetings, if I remember correctly with the City Staff
and State Highway Department right-of-way staff. At that time a consensus
' was reached , both on our part and the City ' s part, that it would be much
preferred for the highway location to take a northerly location rather
than a southerly location from the current highway in terms of the
' expansion. The reason for that was the City wanted to accomplish a
service road servicing Lake Ann Park and tie it back into the County road .
That' s the premise we designed and operated on. Since then now the State
' has come out with an exact location of the highway but we didn' t see that
at least until after our project had been started . In relationship to it ,
our buildings yes , are affected by what are called the construction limits
of the highway. Not the actual highway right-of-way. When I got into a
discussion several weeks back with Evan Greene of the State Highway
Department, they had since our original meeting on this , researched the
issue and found out some federal funds were used in relationship to the
Lake Ann Park. . .some sort of fund that prohibited them using that land to
expand the highway. That' s been a. . .like geez we put a building where the
highway belongs but that isn' t the case. We put a building where we were
1
- 9
AMOCO Amoco Oil Company
'MEN"
Twin Cities District
Southgate Office Plaza,Suite 890
5001 West 80th Street
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55437
612-831-3464
Don L.Clark
District Manager
November 16, 1988 ,
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mayor & City Council
Gentlemen: '
Should MnDOT propose and approve plans for installation of a
solid median on State Trunk Highway 101 north of Minnesota '
Highway 5 to just south of the railroad tracks; and further
if a break in this median is provided for full access
movement to West 79th Street, Amoco will reduce from two to
one entrance to its property. The cost to relocate existing
driveways will be Amoco' s expense.
C. L. Kristuf"
Business Dev-lopme /t Representative
1