The URL can be used to link to this page

10-4-89 Agenda and Packet a AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1989, 7: 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER — PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review for a Industrial/Office/Warehouse Facility on 3 . 95 Acres of Property Zoned IOP and located at the Northwest Corner of Park Road and Park Court, Rome Corporation. 2 . Site Plan Review for a Bank and Office Building on Property — Zoned BH, Highway Business and Located at the Northeast Corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street, Crossroads National Bank. OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE — OPEN DISCUSSION 3 . Discussion of Aesthetic Aspects of the Highway 5 and 101 Corridors, Fred Hoisington. — 4. Potential Ordinance Modifications to Require Financial Guarantees for Landscaping and Other Site Improvements Required — as a Condition of Site Plan Approval. 5 . Land Use Map Discussion - Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMENT CITY O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 4, 1989 '�\� r � rCEANIIAS :EN C.C. DATE: Oct. 23, 1989 CASE NO: 89-8 9 8 Site Plan Prepared by: Krauss/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for the Rome Office Building I- z - LOCATION: Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Park Road J and Park Place 0 0_ APPLICANT: Roman R. Roos for Rome Corporation 1450 Park Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park District ACREAGE: 3 . 95 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP; vacant industrial S- IOP; industrial E- IOP; industrial 0 W- IOP; industrial WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site H PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Vacant - previously graded - land slopes (n from high point in west to low point near Park Place. The site contains no wetland areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial - - vy . i i� wpbanN _ . , , , W _ -4' i IP• ' � it1401 iiiiii0 ore, kiy RY li. ta Ww tea W'.-s-"A•�. i is •'Val `J , 1 0: �•''. dra Nip 00 " Illaniii__11 . I, :. ,•.:13,7,;:sestr j:: , A tag.,:o ca 1 -411A-643 Skeldi tie 1 • ce-s• Viagams-4,0%,' - :ITREraV (,• LAKE ANN ` , �itog. � RS .vies � �►iDoll .c.TT, w: ,, ' --— ":„ ,..,ort.. v.AO : c... ---;, _ it . Ic° 1p e oiler : , __ •• - , Altv a v i 6.. Or ,( --:/r `--------_-:-.- _-__i_.. ,-;-- - mom. - illi ' liqr."-: do. 0 R4 �`*,C rt,�:..� tba !; _ �,�*vim- � �� 4., "... k _ _ . _ . fl " ir;— =Q . ;___ . .1312411 _—. A - :Me - Moo dillr I • 4 :1'1.. BOULEVARD VA RO . ��iLL6illit' P4/iK i- • BUTTERCUP j — _ �� cvar i .. , Pg �T., . Et ROADWI. �_ Ilik Tv'i° 1 't ,i, ,;y.,--.......A. .<>\:,,,,,,,,,\--P, * . fk.,c ..P. 00."'"".. KT 0.1 . 4. BG 1O P PPR � -�++ f Te p , „...4; .te Al- &!) ) * :0? °° °°....° PA' •P'. .* . 1 OIC--"--) , :2417 \--- . z _ • . , ;-,..... . \ tftS.,°I F13 'Vr -- :1/4 ps.,440:60-14,,,. • , - , a saill . t:� . I °` , a , f) __LAKE_ SUSAN In �i m RD Q ,,c-•:°1*- Com' N __ . _. `� �o } W PUD— 1 �._' 3 R ' Rome Office Building October 4 , 1989 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting site plan approval to construct a 32,400 square foot office/warehouse building on a 3 . 9 acres site located at the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. A second 17, 500 square foot building is conceptually illustrated for development on the same site although approvals for it are not being requested at this time. The site appears to have been graded previously and contains no natural amenities worthy of preservation. The single story building is attractively designed. Office areas are oriented towards the streets with truck loading docks concealed in an area along the less visible north elevation. Exterior materials include brick and rock-faced block with a standing seam metal roofing used to highlight the rounded building corners and entrances. Parking provisions exceed ordinance requirements. Staff is concerned with the proposal to have two curb cuts on Park Road due to the traffic volumes that the road carries and the proximity of the eastern curb cut to Park Place. We are recommending that the eastern entrance be deleted and believe that the building is adequately served by the remaining two entrances. An extremely well developed landscaping plan has been provided, public utilities are available and drainage provisions are reasonably simple. There are no variances associated with the proposal. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the site plan be approved subject to the appropriate stipulations . SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 3 . 95 acres site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. It appears to have been extensively graded in the past and contains no trees or wetlands . Natural drainage is into a low/wet area located off- site to the north. The site slopes down from west to east with the high point of 946 ' found near the northwest corner of the site and the low of 923 ' found along Park Place. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The site is retangular with the longer face oriented east to west along Park Drive. Park Place is the more minor street and is designed as a cul-de-sac to serve several industrial lots . Both the 32, 4000 square foot building currently being proposed and a 17,500 square foot building that is conceptually illustrated are oriented south along Park Drive. Truck loading areas are placed along the north elevations where they will be concealed by the building with further screening provided by the fact that the docks are recessed. Rome Office Building October 4 , 1989 Page 3 The single story office/warehouse building is attractively designed. Exterior materials include brick skirting with rock- faced block above. The roofline is flat, however, interest is — provided by a variety of steps incorported into the building ele- vations and standing seam metal roofing over building corners and entrances. Extensive glazing on all visible elevations tends to promote an office rather then industrial image. The architect has confirmed that the exterior treatment will be utilized on all building elevations except inside the loading dock areas. _ No details are provided on trash storage facilities. Exterior trash storage areas should be provided with enclosures built of material compatible with the building. Alternatively, trash storage could be restricted to internal locations. No details are provided on HVAC equipment screening. The equip- ment will be roof mounted. Staff would prefer to have the screen constructed from materials compatible with the building exterior, by utilizing the standing seam metal for example, rather then employ a wood screen fence. Details acceptable to the City should be worked out prior to City Council review. PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION Parking provisions for this type of building are often difficult for staff to determine accurately. The reason is that the inter- _ nal division of space is flexible since it is based upon the tennants needs . Office and manufacturing generate large parking demands while warehousing does not. Therefore, it is our pre- ference to provide a "cushion" of additional stalls if possible. — The plans illustrate the following: Phase I & II Use Area Parking Total Office 10 ,500 s . f. 3 stalls/per 1000 s. f. 32 Warehouse 39 , 400 s . f. 1 stall/per 1000 s. f. 40 Required Total 72 stalls Provided 154 stalls Phase I Use Area Parking Total Office 9 , 000 s . f. 3 stalls/per 1000 s . f. 27 Warehouse 23 , 400 s . f. 1 stall/per 1000 s . f. 24 Required Total 51 stalls Provided 72 stalls Rome Office Building October 4 , 1989 Page 4 Based upon the analysis, we have concluded that parking provi- sions are acceptable since ordinance requirements are exceeded by a large margin. — Internal circulation works well and no modifications are proposed. ACCESS Three access points have been proposed, two on Park Drive and one on Plark Place. Park Drive is a through street that functions as an industrial collector. Park Place is a short cul-de-sac — serving the area that is scheduled for upgrading next spring. Staff is concerned that the eastern curb cut on Park Road could cause traffic conflicts with Park Place and normally attempts to reduce the number of curb cuts on busy streets. We believe that the site can be adequately served by the western curb cut on Park Road and by the Park Place entrance and are recommending that the — eastern curb cut be eliminated. In its place a paved area to facilitate backing movements of parked cars should be provided. In addition, we are recommending that the remaining two curb cuts — be widened to facilitate truck turning movements. We are also concerned that the grade on the western curb cut exceeds 10%. While no official ordinance standard exists, we believe that this — is excessive and could pose a traffic hazard. The grading plan should be revised to reduce the grade to less then 5%. LANDSCAPING A very high quality landscaping plan has been developed. The plan provides generous amounts of landscaping in setback areas, — around the building foundation and on parking lot islands. The area that is to contain the second phase addition will be graded during the initial construction. This area should be — seeded or sodded and kept in a maintained condition until construction is proposed. — LIGHTING/SIGNAGE Lighting and signage details should be provided for staff review. — GRADING/DRAINAGE The site naturally drains towards the north and this flow will be perpetuated by the current proposal. The off-site ponding area that will be utilized was sized to handle the water that will be generated. Preliminary plans are generally acceptable. Storm sewer located along Park Place should be designed to connect with improvements Rome Office Building — October 4 , 1989 Page 5 that will be installed by the City when that street is upgraded. To accomplish this an additional catch basin at the Park Place curb cut is required. The culvert under the driveway is to be _ for temporary use only since the roadside ditch will be elimi- nated when the street is upgraded. All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW should be built with reinforced concrete pipe. All parking lot curbing should be concrete and designed to merge with the curb line in the ROW. Watershed District approval is required. — Grading plans are generally acceptable. A large amount of work is required to lower and flatten the site. Erosion control is proposed along the north construction line. Additional measures are required along the south where water may flow into the street. PUBLIC UTILITIES City water and sewer are available in Park Road. An additional — fire hydrant is needed to adequately serve the site. It should be located on the parking lot island found off the northwest corner of the building. PHASE I COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Proposed Building Height 4 stories 1 story — Building Setback N-10 ' E-25 ' N-90 ' E-150 ' S-30 ' W-10 ' S-30 ' W-250 ' Parking Stalls 72 103 Parking Setback N-10 ' E-25 ' N-10 ' E-25 ' — S-30 ' W-10 ' S-30 ' W-220 ' Lot Coverage 70% 75% Variances Required: None * First phase hard surface exceeds the permitted standard, — however, no variance is needed since Phase II currently remains undeveloped. As currently proposed both phases will result in 71. 5% lot coverage which also exceeds the ordinance standards. — When the Phase II site plan is reviewed, it is expected that this variance can be eliminated by simply removing several parking stalls . Since the number of stalls far exceeds the ordinance standards this will not cause any problems. — Rome Office Building October 4, 1989 — Page 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Site Plan Review #89-8 for the Rome Office Building be approved without variances subject to the following stipulations : 1 . Provide trash storage enclosures built with materials com- — patible with the building or store all trash internally. 2 . Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be provided with a screen constructed of materials compatible with the building exterior. Details should be preapred for staff approval prior to City Council review. — 3. Eliminate the eastern curb cut on Park Road and replace it with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars. Redesign the remaining curb cuts as required to facilitate truck turning movements. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road and curb cut from 10+% to less then 5%. 4 . Revise the ladnscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding — of the Phase II building area. This area is to be kept in a maintained condition until construction occurs . — 5 . Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 6 . Utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to — improvements in Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add an additional catch basin at the Park Place curb cut. All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW shall — be reinforced concrete pipe. 7 . Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on — the site and maintained until site restoration is completed. Additional erosion control may be required along the south property line by staff to prevent erosion into Park Road. — 8 . Add a fire hydrant on teh parking lot island located off the northwest corner of the building. — 9 . Provide lighting and signage details for staff review. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memo from Dave Hemple dated September 27, 1989. 2 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 22 , 1989. 3 . Memo from Ron Julkowski dated September 27, 1989. 4 . Site plan dated September 8, 1989. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr . Engineering Technician ,tt_' — DATE: September 27, 1989 SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Rome Office Building Upon review of the site plan for Rome Office Building dated — August 31, 1989 , I offer the following comments and recommendation: Streets 1. Delete the most easterly driveway access onto Park Drive. _ Since Park Road acts as a collector through the industrial park, it is desirable to reduce the number of curb cuts having direct access. 2 . The applicant should be made aware that Park Place is pro- posed to be upgraded this spring. The plans should be modified accordingly to reflect the proposed road improve- ments scheduled. The proposed road will consist of 3#" bitu- minous overlay 38 ft. wide face-to-face with B-618 concrete curb and gutter and 3% slopes on the boulevards. 3 . The applicant shall verify that the radiuses are sufficient for truck traffic. 4. The applicant should end the concrete curbs for the driveway access onto Park Place at the property line. This would enable the City' s contractor to match the existing curbs when Park Place is upgraded. Sanitary Sewer and Water City water and sanitary sewer is available from Park Road. Grading and Drainage _ The plans indicate storm sewer being extended to the site from the City' s storm sewer system along the north property line. The — Mr. Paul Krauss September 27, 1989 Page 2 overall system was designed to handle storm runoff generated from such developments . All storm sewer within the City' s right-of- way or utility easements shall be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) . The plans propose a 15" storm sewer underneath the driveway — access at Park Place. This culvert should be placed for tem- porary purposes only. As Park Place is upgraded the existing ditch will be filled in and the culvert will no longer be needed. When the future parking lot to the west is constructed, an addi- tional catch basin should be added in the northeast corner of the parking lot. The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed require- ments. — Erosion Control The applicant proposes Type I erosion control along the perimeter of the east and north lot lines. It may also be necessary to extend the erosion control on the south boundary for part of the site. Type I erosion control, i .e. silt fence, will be accep- table at this time; however, if the City feels that this is not sufficient in holding back the erosion, the City will monitor the site for erosion problems and if deemed necessary, additional erosion control may be required in the future. All catch basins shall be ringed with bales or silt fence until paving operations are completed. CITY OF cHANHAssEN l � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: September 22, 1989 SUBJ : 89-8 Site Plan Review ( Rome Office Building) Comments and/or recommendations : 1 ) Add an additional Fire Hydrant as shown on Utility Plan . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ron Julkowski , Building Official DATE: September 27 , 1989 SUBJ: Rome Office Building The Building Department has reviewed the site plans for the Rome Office Building has has no comments . -- --a • min It.ova mlii I I I - -- t> w I- U) . _ i -f 0 am -� ; • -m um -. C-= m m v -- t — --1 j u Ty ri- a .�., -= m I I lit I I-__ --- -1 - I `-, tI I C-- --1 0 mi Z -- ii rDz , l 1 I 1 I -......\\I L. , :.1: l ► l IIJ iiii_IHL! I 1 ; 1 iii:!'. iiir . y'IIIIIIIII I I P - - i Ip{JIIC ?t -- 17_1 33 g qo .N614IC'i x • o is — tI o > 00 av 'Poe'Poe :"F - — 71 im a a — pa:o E - 3 '-- � -- - 0 f- - 1IIN . dCq . — . ( � ; ��' 1a TTl 71-1.1 -I-11. 1 l I I I'I I L — il" aa 1IIHIib4• — iso F e of * o • -/ 1 �3 — S l c Z r N 1-,--;7?' \ I�i iii-~L _ F- r -r--.---.- -;- f I -' ---, • ` ..— 1 = f 0 slos.„111; hili •!F q F,iihiIiIIII t• Z I u 4F• 1 :I •- •' T .6�-!i �• , Z ,. > p '' Ja ri X:s. ) 1-4.11. --:-.*-4,,,t -. .,-% .arat Z CSIL I 1. l'-! / 1 #r 3°x °x ROME OFFICE BUILDING _ ! ��61 , !� � 71 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA a v i9 s-- c __ zxz a iiiii! 7 IgliIlli l'iIii 019ENI. WIE1911 Z 1! .1.1 1a R° IC!1 PI 11 ei ..e. si ill 11 1121 Ii ,�i1 i� li Pi i' 1414 E Eg 1i1 I 1,1 - I a l@ 9i lid E , .I r. ��- I -:, r� ii .1 ii ��i . .ii I 11 . 311 ► t - ..- •1IiI 111;' r 11111 • WMHI !E1� 1i_ I 6EI ! c `JIll ,'1 1111 HH ! Iz : f "1i � 11 irs ri it '11 Aii a!: 1 •FI lli 1! .,!i . °I:" 1 lii Y� r III � i •: N �'� i__ I 111.101 ---_i __ * a , o ,i ,i AMI �i s 411 Ili' pir.:«75.11iiitga IIIn ii li ,15 .1 lc _.____ _f 11 �is., css 'Is 9u �� glC Ii ,, � - . tI t 8 8181 S1 118181 a : . 1s { j o tn. r III !II 11 bh hill 11 ! IP ° • F F, f. Ill t• _— I liPi! $/i ' :1 I ,. • _ _ �r3- ,�� I '�it o9s!>•1fili n 11 4 1 TI,f,,t.... ,.y.:+ !3 ill I - '1 I - .MlispI _ I I I (Cf0'�, l __ is 0 ,..i1,4*,,, .: 7 'lib/ I. Irrsi 4 L ,40 I 14111,1;:4 1t '1►1 - eve e40allot , -..._ til s� I m 1 . .r, N -. ! I i i7.91-.1, ilpil.ro---, ► ; � -,-..i..:;- 111:: .1.4--Sta 4)2,' _. _ 48 iy w ••-, ,r !;t E►iliil; !!I!ti 1 _T ;iiIii`Iji .l;i.t 1n i I! ,I , 1 , _ _ 1 ile:4' '' -1 AFLi. • .11 - i1s1 ii4q E > 1,,,k,-.1\ - ; A . 1 1 i 777 1 — a a2. a1''7 a mil` I ,�;;.� ` - .r 1°- ROME OFFICE BUILDING r ..p lel; . ��" ., !4 „to CHANHASSEN.MINNESOTA y••7; y 14- I 4 • I , .).....a. te _ • _ � . I} I /N ;r J t 1.- .s III ,tC• 1 • IIa * _ 1 A • iI i F iiN I ; 1• N 1,I ' 561--:.\ -t*�'�_ • i t ,' A ;1 ; r- , 1 : i . :.\ 1. A"' • ' — j I i a z 6 I s 3 \ i �1 - - i a' • 4 s I I 1 4. 1 ," i il 1 ' 'I1 .•;:.;1 .'i I^ 1 i // I 31 / II I ''�� • p :.,R if .� i •p,•- :w a y t42 1 x _111 'I i Zov •f -'I.e j I j IAC - a • 1 - • 1 ,!. c> 1-i 12 li" 1 1 ' I .. \'' ir'f.11-.1•11,_41 •-,,, • !I .i------- ! 1 1,',A ._i y°.11 re- 4 0 I . 1 ':i '` 1 ,_,(,.,:.•,".-. __ / -- ' - ---- j''' . as 11 F i .1 . : N.l':I i • I • j.4:!' ... - / glI • • ni 4I \. t -I, =I ,a r,i I WI ; I! Ri '.:x,3,cF — I. ]]QQQI I i eyg� g g- idliX•— 6 Fa — � , , , I.: • - /lROME OFFICE BUILDING _ s }3 •lid_; 1.:*1 -`:=:, •.. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1= !MD iA " a 1. /1- 11 �i7i CITY OF P.C. DATE: Oct. 4 , 1989 ClIAMIAO : ZN C.C. DATE: Oct. 23 , 1989 CASE NO: 89-6 Site Plan Prepared by: Olsen/v • STAFF REPORT J PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for 14 , 000 Sq. Ft. Bank and Office Building - Crossroads National Bank Z LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th Q Street - Parts of Lots 5-7, Block 1, Frontier (, Development Park - APPLICANT: TCNB Incorporated Tom Mork 10201 Wayzata Blvd. Jim Ruckle Minnetonka, MN 55343 Shea Architects Q Butler Square, Suite 300 100 North 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 1 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District and BG, General Business District ACREAGE: 2. 4 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- BH; railroad tracks & Chan Bowl S- BH; vacant _ Q . E- BH; vacant W- BG; vacant - ponding area W HWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is fairly level unimproved property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial V sitar �' Eat= is :s�a \ \, �i'...,-- \\,,s - si ' t dl veg Mr WA NA liews4 11-4"Alr II -.--s. ,c, " . T io '• ‘OACI3i4iatalli �� j=Lir a " '40 WIPP l� T.Z701 11 R \ 1 OR. i L 0 / IIS i,-1� /ifirttli--lia& I 1111,4_,, Iiii da WV' sir% ►1 �► ' iii, % PRIVE3315).I\) f‘(, w .e. ' go Ill S►r �,'t•pr.t$,,,,v4.,,•-.. Av. vats: :Ix .11041 *zap 1 2 ° MEM se` ,. 11111k�irsima,....m .. L.ta +��:110 .•, , SHADOWMER.E �' , ? 4 -'. nom i - \ ' kl ■ b., r A *%:.-41-6 ' X4 10 ' . . ' ,:a , IC IE ( :\ ao_ - oo`E.F° ,1�. ,1*::,_.... SII. ,� p -� WW \ L A NE \\©� . R__ S, . . c4i iirkii-,1-„irtriro>4 bio � u ,,,T.',,,,,,,_ \ ' Via r iisSi wohitiiiviir.* '- , r� f*tf!1i.•7 �� -ME0\. a �, II\ r ��I .�...1 a. a • '-Z. fg al ink 4 III wor, 011.11TINT Bb • ^Ate\' IS- • "ci*eiliwtV• .._- ' -4t_SLIN irf• .'-411,m• ' If#4.6 .. . . snrl- - , ,:.. „iiimmer46 .tirli\v'Zitidi . . . a ... .. itti '\„,H -..' IcnT•..67act . umbertaimuschakilli R1 G :� :R ..a �,��---.. � .: �}� � Fr, of m: r num IN NA RS fr)�'� �, ,- _, �.� 4 --,....i...] ) Q , ... ._ ..... ..111117,11 ,tit'4,.41:1:11111 .ps,` . 'f'; - : ' i r 6 '� .■ 11111111111 ` \ . k ��_ :11111 , P D• .1 1 M4‘in .. L Mb INK s I. . / i I rol !kw'. ii, Ik°...-- - ' pa 40 ulP0111 . g. .. -mi....Awl< 21 i %ilk . illibirm; ci III- -. /II gall,"AC f • . 40 .......0"- I-G WAY �� A�P : �� L�� (2.175: ��• ► ■ :: , ---iu ! ‘• :\°II' le' -IA .10 4._a s 4) _ - - : . 1 01 Vit- ': , t `•� • lRSF _tiL AN • • �° - T LAKE SUSAN , , ow :" Crossroads National Bank October 4, 1989 — Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Financial institutions are a permitted use in the BH and BG Districts. Section 20-715 and 20-755 requires in the BH District a minimum lot area of 20 ,000 square feet, lot frontage of 100 feet, lot depth of 150 feet and a maximum lot coverage 65% ( 70% in BG — District) . The setbacks for the BH District are 25 feet front, 20 feet for rear yard and 10 feet for the side yard setbacks . The setback for BG District is 25 feet front and rear and 10 feet on the side yards. The maximum height for a structure is two stories for the principle structure and one story for the accessory structure in BH and 3 stories ( 40 ' ) in BG District. There is no minimum setback for off-street parking areas when it — abuts a railroad right-of-way except as provided in Sections 20-1191 and 20-1192 pertaining to landscaping requirements . 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 two feet. Omar 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 for office three parking spaces for each — 1 , 000 square feet of gross floor area and one parking space every 250 square feet of floor space for a financial institute. — REFERRAL AGENCIES Building Inspector Attachment #1 Fire Inspector Attachment #2 City Engineer Attachment #3 ANALYSIS — The applicant is proposing to develop a bank and office building with a total square footage of 14,000 square feet ( including a future 4, 000 sq. ft. addition) . The building is located at the northeast corner of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The proposed site is part of Lots 5-7, Block 1, Frontier Development • Crossroads National Bank October 4 , 1989 Page 3 Park which is owned by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The applicant is currently negotiating with the HRA to purchase the property. As part of the agreement, the City is _ platting the subject property and adjacent property also under the ownership of the HRA. A condition of site plan approval will be for the preliminary and final plat to be approved and recorded with Carver County. — The site is in both the BG and BH District. This is due to the fact that the old district boundaries do not conform to the pre- - sent Market Boulevard alignment. The site plan meets conditions of either district but a rezoning of the property should occur during the plat procedure to provide consistency. The City will initiate the request. Site Plan Circulation The bank is oriented towards West 79th Street with a drive-thru _ area located adjacent to Market Boulevard. The design of the site plan allows easy flow for the drive-thru tellers and allows separate access for parking and entering the bank and office areas. Market Boulevard, once connected to Hwy. 5, will become a major roadway entering downtown Chanhassen. The Market Boulevard curb — cut will be an entrance only. A left turn lane will be provided into the site from southbound Market Boulevard. Due to the high traffic levels that are expected, staff is recommending that a right turn deceleration lane should be provided to accommodate traffic entering the site from Market Boulevard. In addition, a bituminous sidewalk is located on the east side of Market Boulevard from West 78th Street to "Bowling Alley Lane" and con- tinues east on "Bowling Alley Lane" . Staff is recommending that a 6 ' concrete sidewalk be located south from "Bowling Alley Lane" to West 79th Street on the east side of Market Boulevard. — To accommodate the right turn lane on Market Boulevard and the 6 foot concrete side sidewalk, the 44 ' right-of-way will have to be expanded. At the most, an additional 20 feet of right-of-way would be required. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to design the deceleration lane and sidewalk to deter- mine the exact amount of additional right-of-way which is — required. Once the amount of additional right-of-way is deter- mined, the site plan will have to be revised to reflect the new westerly lot line ( to maintain proper setbacks) . This revision can be easily accommodated by shifting the entire site plan to the east. The most easterly curb cut on West 79th Street is approximately — 75 feet from the West 79th Street-Market Boulevard intersection. Crossroads National Bank October 4, 1989 Page 4 Staff would prefer the exit be further separated from the inter- section ( 100 ' - 150 ' ) . Shifting the site plan to the east to accommodate the additional right-of-way on Market Boulevard will provide additional separation between the exit and the intersec- tion ( approximately 100 ' ) . The east access on West 79th Street is located on the east lot line and the adjacent lot. In the future the easterly access on West 79th Street will also act as an access to the adjacent lot when it is developed. Since the access is crossing property lines, cross easements must be provided. Parking, Landscaping and Elevation Using the calculation for parking for financial institutions at one parking space per 250 square feet of building area, a total of 56 parking spaces would be required. The applicant is pro- viding 67 parking spaces which includes 2 handicapped parking spaces . The 67 spaces exceeds the requirements for financial institutions and offices . The area for cars using the drive-thru provides adequate stacking distance. Page L-1 of the plans provides proposed landscaping for the site. The applicant is providing the required landscaping except for hedges required on the berm located between the south parking area and West 769th Street. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide the necessary landscaping on the berm between the parking area and West 79th Street. Staff is not requiring internal landscaping along the most easterly lot line since the parking area and access will be expanded into the adjoining lot. The building is one story with a tower at the southwest corner. The building is brick with bronze metal roof with HVAC enclosed internally. There are 6 covered drive-thru tellers connecting the building with a tower made of similar materials which features a time and date sign. Signage The applicant is proposing one pylon sign, several directional signs and a time and temperature sign above the drive-thru. The pylon sign is located at the entrance from Market Boulevard and is 45 square feet in size. The BH and BG District permits one pylon sign/lot not to exceed 64 square feet and the height of the pylon sign is limited to 20 feet. A detail on the pylon sign providing the height of the sign shall be provided prior to City Council approval. The time and temperature sign is located on the north and west side of the tower and is 42 square feet ( 3 ' x 14 ' ) . Sign permits are required for the pylon and directional signs. The time and temperature sign are permitted without a permit. Any additional signage will require a permit. Crossroads National Bank _ October 4 , 1989 Page 5 Grading, Drainage & Utilities Please refer to the Senior Engineering Technician ' s memorandum. — Temporary Facility Page 1B of the site plan illustrates a modular banking facility and a phasing plan for the construction of a permanent facility. The applicant is proposing to utilize the temporary facility in order to open up the bank prior to the permanent building being — completed. The temporary building is a 24 ' x 74 ' modular constructed building. The temporary building is a fully self contained building with all necessary eqiupment including two — drive up lanes . Crossroads National Bank will be prepared to open their bank for business in the near future and the permanent building will not be completed until the end of 1990 or early 1991 . -" The temporary bank facility will be located within the easterly parking lot. All of the parking areas used for the temporary — banking facility will be paved with the curb and gutter and landscaped as proposed on the overall site plan. The building will have footings, will be hooked up to sewer and water and will — be handicapped accessible. The temporary facility will utilize the easterly full access on West 79th Street. A condition of site plan approval will be that the temporary facility will have to be removed within one week of the permanent facility receiving — a certificate of occupancy. RECOMMENDATION — Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: _ "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #89-6 for Crossroads National Bank as shown on the plan dated September 22, 1989 and subject to the following conditions : 1. The property shall be platted and recorded with Carver County. 2 . The City shall process a rezoning of the property as part of the platting procedure. 3 . The site plan shall be revised to include a right turn dece- leration lane on Market Boulevard and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Market Boulevard. The site plan shall be revised to reflect additional right-of-way necessary for the deceleration lane and sidewalk and to maintain required setbacks . _ Crossroads National Bank October 4, 1989 Page 6 4 . The applicant shall provide cross easements for the joint access on West 79th Street. 5. The applicant shall provide revised landscaping plan pro- viding necessary landscaping on the berm between the parking area and West 79th Street. 6 . The applicant shall provide a detail on the pylon sign pro- viding the height of the sign prior to City Council approval. 7 . The temporary facility will have to be removed within one week of the permanent bank facility receiving a certificate of occupancy. 8. The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed District requirements . 9 . The city will monitor the site for erosion control problems and if deemed necessary additional erosion control may be required in the future. 10. Exact storm sewer connections and design shall be verified in the field and approved by the City' s Engineering Department prior to construction. 11. The exit on West 79th Street shall be moved a minimum of 100 feet from the West 79th Street/Market Boulevard intersection. 12. The applicant shall illustrate how the easterly parking lot will be modified in the future when the adjacent parcel is developed. " ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memo from Ron Julkowski dated September 27, 1989. 2 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 27, 1989. 3 . Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1989. 4 . Letter from Crossroads National Bank dated September 12, 1989. 5 . Letter from Crossroads National Bank dated September 11, 1989 . 6 . Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated September 20, 1989 . 7 . Site plan dated September 22, 1989 . � i AIt . ' CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 — MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission — I° FROM: Ron Julkowski , Building Official /�1,4• DATE: September 27 , 1989 SUBJ: Crossroads National Bank Building and Office The Building Department has reviewed the site plan. The tem- porary bank building must meet all handicap requirements per State Building Code and State Plumbing Code. — The manufactured building must comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements for 80 mile per hour wind load. Plans for — this building must be submitted for review signed by an engineer. The building must also meet all plumbing requirements ( sewer and water) per State Plumbing Code. Also, plans must have Minnesota Seal from State Inspection Department. — 3/4"/7 SITE PLAN REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE C Y-03.) r c. <k The purpose of these questions is to determine the necessary requirements for the prevention or minimizing of loss of lives and property. A committee of Jim Chaffee, Scott Harr, Dale Gregory and Mark Littfin will determine the answers based on the site plan submitted by the contractor. The contractor may also be called for further verification. The results of the questionnaire will then be forwarded to Jo Ann Olsen with the committee recommendations. Non- Questions Canply Canpliance 1. Means of access for fire department apparatus shall be provided to all structures in planned building groups in accordance with Section 3-1 and the appli- i cable provisions of Sections 3-2 through 3-8. 2. Every dead-end roadway more than 300 ft (91 m) in length shall be provided at the closed end with a turnaround acceptable to the fire department. 3. Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width and shall be constructed with a minimum radius of 25 ft (7.5 m) at the inside curb line and a radius of 50 ft (15 m) at the outside curb line. — - 4. Roadways shall be not less than 24 ft (7 m) wide pro- vided no parking is allowed, not less than 30 ft (9 m) wide if parallel parking is allowed on one side, and not less than 36 ft (10.5m) wide if parallel parking is allowed on both sides. _______ —_ 5. Parking in any means of access shall not be permitted within 20 ft (6 m) of a fire hydrant, sprinkler or standpipe connection or in any other manner which will I/ obstruct or interfere with the fire department's use of the hydrant or connection. - _ - 6. "No Parking" signs or other designation indicating that parking is prohibited shall be provided at all normal and emergency access points to structures and within 20 V-) yvk " �`� ft (6 m) of each fire hydrant, sprinkler, or standpipe J ^ ' c(-)'e t--.) connection. _� 7. Where no recognized water supply distribution system exists, appropriate access shall be provided for waterki 4 — 11.:-... supplies°in accordance with the provisions of NFPA / , 1231, "Sandard Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting. " ------- _�� • • .• • , Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 2 • Non- Questions Comply Compliance 8: - Fire lanes shall be at least 20 ft (6 m) in width with the road edge closest to the structure at least ✓ 10 ft (3 m) from the structure. 9. "No Parking - Tow-Away Zone" signs shall be posted in accordance with the instructions of the fire 4a Gu. sdepartment having jurisdiction and a method of enforcing such provisions shall be provided. "`- 1. _ 10. Fire lanes connecting to public streets, roadway, or private streets shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least 2 ft. (0.6096 m) beyond each edge of the fire lane. 11. Chains or other barriers may be provided at the entrance to fire lanes or private streets, provided —. (J/4 that they are installed according to the requirements — of the fire department having jurisdiction. 12. The designation and maintenance of fire lanes on private property shall be accomplished as specified --� — by the fire department having jurisdiction. 13. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 ft - — (7.5 n) clear width between rows of parked vehicles G=� for vehicular access and movement. . . 14. At least three perimeter walls of structures and all exterior doors into structures constructed as a part of .a planned building group shall be within 200 ft (61 m) of an approvea.fire lane or street. - — 15. Structures exceeding 30 ft (9 m) in height shall not - _. be set back more than 50 ft (15 m) from a street, fire — C. lane, or private.street: (Exception: - When any combination of private fire -.protection facilities, including, but not limited to, . _ _fire-resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation and automatic fire extinguishing systems, is provided and approved by the fire marshal as an acceptable alternative, 3-4.2 shall not apply.) — 16. All structures exceeding three stories in height and 3,000 sq. ft (279 sq m) in ground floor area _ and containing nonrated openings in exterior walls facing other structures shall be separated from other structures by at least 20 ft (6 m) of clear space between structures, and 10 ft (3 m) from a common property line. $ite Plan Review Questionaire Page 3 Non- Questions amply Compliance 17. :Al least two means of access for-fire apparatus-shall :be provided for each structure exceeding 30 ft (9 m) for three stories in height, not less than one of V� which shall be a fire lane, or street. 18. At least 14 ft (4 m). of nominal clearance shall ,z be provided over the full width of streets, fire ( e;lanes,.and other_means-of_vehicular. access. 4; � �,�► c r 19. --Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be placed around structures in a. manner so as to _ impair or impede accessibility for fire fighting. and rescue operations. ��'• �L�- r�. r �.A 20. The location of structures and access to each — structure shall be approved_ by the fire marshal. !///-- before permits for construction are issued. . 21. All structures more than three stories in height . . or over 50 ft (15 in) in. height above grade and containing intermediate stories or balconies shall .be equipped with a standpipe system in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 14, Standard for the � Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems. Fire Ij 71!, department standpipe connections shall be located IT within 50 ft (15 m) of a fire hydrant. 22. Water supply systems not publicly owned and in- stalled shall meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private _ Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, or / _NFPA 1231, Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban rind Rural Fire Fighting, where no recognized water _,supply distribution exists. 23. -Fire hydrants shall be provided in a ratio of at least one fire hydrant for every 90,000 sq. ft (8370 sq m) of ground area or portion thereof j involved in the development. (Exception: This .� requirement shall not apply to land planned or left for other than structural development. ) Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 4 Questions Non- Ccznoly Compliance 24. The fire flow requirements shall be not less than - — 7- that established by the fire department having jurisdiction. In cases where a water supply system consisting of mains and hydrants does not W� exist, the provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard / on ►eater Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire 11i Fighting, shall apply. 25. Water supplies shall be capable of supplying the _ required fire flow for at least one hour for fire flows of 1500 gpm (6750_L/min) at- 20 psi (1.38 bars) or less; or for two hours for.fire flow greater than 1500 gp-n (6750 L/min) at 20 psi (1.38 bars) . (Exception: In those situations where the provisions of NFPA 1231, Standard on dater j -' Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting, I� are utilized, 3-6.2.2 shall not apply.) 26. The contractor or installer of water supply systems in planned building groups shall _ demonstrate by actual test that the capacity _ of the water supply system will meet fire protection design requirements. Fire-flow . H/ performance tests shall be witnessed by the . fire department and other authorities having — jurisdiction who desire to do so. 27. Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 ft (91 m) unless fire department operations or technology would otherwise dictate increased spacing. For buildings exceeding 20,000 'sq ft (1860 sq m) in ground floor area, a fire hydrant shall be installed within 300 ft (91 m) of any portion of the building. Actual location of fire hydrants shall be as required by - the fire department prior to installation. 28. Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be _ '`%fl protected by barriers that will prevent physical damage from vehicles. 29. Fire hydrants shall be located within 3 ft — (0.9144 m) of the curb line of fire lanes, streets, or private streets, when installed along such v access ways. 30. Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the American water works Association. • Site Plan Review Questionaire :Page 5 Questions Non- _ Comply Compliance 31. Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall be American National Fire Hose Connection Screw Threads and shall be equipped with thread adapters when the ✓// local fire department thread is different. 32. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6-in. (15-cm) diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less than an 8-in. (20-an) diameter main if the system is not looped or the fire hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300 ft (91.m) in length.- 33. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 ft (182.5 m) in length for main sizes under 10 in. (25 an) in diameter. (' / 34. Fire department vehicular access to all structures under construction shall be provided at all times. - - In areas where ground surfaces are soft or likely to became soft, hard all-weather surface access � � ��; ;, r roads shall be provided. 35. The fire protection water supply system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and in service prior to placing combustible building materials for structures, or combustible pretested fabricated building assemblies on the project site or utilizing them in the construction of building structures. If phased construction is planned, coordinated installa- 1/ tion of the fire protection water system is permitted. 36. Trash and debris shall be removed fran the construc- tion site as often as necessary to maintain a firesafe V. c construction site. •37. Flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored, handled, or used on the construction site in accor- -- • dance with the applicable provisions of NFPA 20, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code; NFPA 58, Standard for the Storage and Handling of Liquefied ' - Petroleum Gases; and NFPA 395, Standard for the ;1" , Storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids on Farms and Isolated Construction Projects. Site Plan Review Questionaire Page 6 Questions Non- omply Ca:toliance 38. At least one portable fire extinguisher having a - rating of at least 4-A, 30-BC shall be within a 'travel distance of 75 ft (22.5 m) or less to any point of a structure under construction. Personnel - - normally on the construction site shall be instructed in the use of the fire extinguishers 4r• provided. 39. •All plans for planned building groups-shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for approval before the issuance of the construction - - - permit. This approval procedure shall include the rV fire department having jurisdiction. 40. In addition to the requirements of 3-9.1 a small- scale drawing of the site's surrounding area showing streets, points, watersupp y access 1 sources, r,/-)and . v,, other items of fire-suppression interest shall be c'.? ��` submitted to the local fire department before the start of any construction. • 41. Drawings showing building floor plans, fire pro- tecticns-sytems, and items of fire suppression L� interest shall be submitted to the fire department having jurisdiction, as requested, upon conpietion - of the project. t• = CITYOF CHANHASSEN _ . �`" 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director �� j� FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician igl A DATE: Seotember 27, 1989 ��``','' __ SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Crossroads Plaza Upon review of the site plan dated April 20 , 1989 submitted by Shea Architects , I offer the following comments and recommendations. Grading and Drainage 1. The plans propose connecting to the City storm sewer system in West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. Exact storm sewer connections and design shall be verified in the field and approved by the City' s Engineering Department prior to construction. At time of construction, these connections should be inspected by City Staff . 2 . The applicant shall comply with any and all watershed requirements. — 3 . The plan indicates erosion control, i .e. silt fence, around the perimeter of the site. The City will monitor the site for erosion control problems and, if deemed necessary, addi- tional erosion control may be required in the future. Sanitary Sewer and Water — 1. City water and sanitary sewer service is available from West 79th Street. — Streets 1. The proposed "out" driveway from the drive-up tellers is too close to West 79th Street and Market Boulevard intersection. It is recommended that this be moved a minimum of 100 ft. back from the intersection and preferably 150 ft. — 2. The driveway on the east side of the bank is proposed to be a shared driveway with the adjacent undeveloped parcel . It Mr . Paul Krauss — September 27 , 1989 Page 2 should be addressed or illustrated as to how the proposed parking lot would be modified in the future when the undeveloped parcel develops . — 3 . To provide for a smooth traffic flow on northbound Market Boulevard, it is recommended that a 13 ft . wide deceleration lane ( right turn lane) be added for vehicles turning in for the drive up tellers . - CROSSROADS NATIONAL BANK (IN ORGANIZATION) September 12, 1989 Ms. Jo Anne Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Jo Anne: Relative to our phone conversation of Monday, September 11, please find enclosed the following: 1 . Ten additional sets of site plan drawings for the Crossroads National Bank building. 2. Side elevation, floor plan, and preliminary construction specifications for the proposed modular building. As we discussed briefly over the phone, Crossroads National Bank is proposing to locate on the eastern portion of the site under consideration a 24' x 70' modular constructed building which will house the bank until its permanent facility is built. The building under consideration is a fully-contained bank building with all necessary equipment, including two drive-up lanes. As currently proposed, it will be newly constructed specifically for our needs. The use of modular banking facilities by banks is neither a new or uncommon concept. In fact, most start-up banks, unless they are moving into an already existing building, spend the first 12-24 months of their existence in a modular facility. In addition, many banks utilize modular buildings for branch facilities on a permanent basis. In our particular instance, we expect that we will be prepared to open the bank for business considerably before a permanent facility could be constructed. Based on the progress to-date in preparing the actual site for construction, it would appear that even under best case conditions, it is somewhat unlikely that we would be able to even break ground for the facility yet this fall. Under that scenario, the earliest construction start date for the bank would be sometime in the • second quarter of 1990, with a completion date of sometime in 1991. Those timetables may be further affected by site preparation difficulties, the bank's growth, weather conditions, or regulatory factors beyond the control of the bank. In any event, it appears to us that the bank will occupy its modular facility anywhere from 12-24 months after the bank's inception. �• 10201 WAYZATA BLVD. #330 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 612/949-9000 Ms. Jo Anne Olsen September 12, 1989 — Page Two Hopefully the above is an adequate response to your questions and concerns regarding the bank's use of a modular facility for its initial banking house. However, if you have any additional questions, or need additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, r _ 11M I Vile__ Thomas L. Mork — President and CEO TLM:rls •S,leeORPORAT ION TEL No . 31F..--263-5465 Hug . 1. ,4 l 14 : O.: r SON• CORPORATION STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATIONS Floor joist -- 2" x 8" on 16" centers Floor decking -- 3/4" tongue and groove plywood Floor finish -- commercial 30oz jute back carpet with 3/8" pad; vinyl in the baths Wall studs -- 2" x 6" on 16" centers Exterior wall sheating -- 3/8" CDX plywood, glued and nailed horizontally Exterior finish T-11 vertical grooved cedar siding Insulation -- R-22 floors, R-19 exterior walls, R-33 ceiling BATTS Interior walls -- vinyl covered 1/2" sheetrock Interior doors -- solid core mahogany or equivalent, stained; all trim wood stained Exterior doors -- commercial front glass doors with closures, aluminum frame with tinted glass and deadbolt; one rear metal exit door with closure and deadbolt Exterior windows 32" x 72" thermo, double glazed, tinted in anodized aluminum frame Interior windows -- 30" x 60" Interior lighting -- fluorescent, four-tube, recessed, per code Ceiling -- 8' high, 1/2" sheetrock with textured paint Roof -- 3/12 pitch, 1/2" CDX plywood sub-roof, wood shake shingles, 16" overhang on the end of the roof; 12" overhang on sides Bath -- 1/2 baths with lavatory, polished edge mirrors, tissue holders, six gallon water heater; exhaust fan with vent through roof Plumbing -- per UPC, sweat copper supply lines, ABS drain waste and vents wiring -- copper wiring in conduit per National Electric Codes Cooling system -- air-conditioning with wiring ready for connections, per engineer- ing recommendations Heating system -- furnace walls one-hour rated, standard heat duct systems with wall register, heat/cool thermostat, gas or electric, per engineering recommendations Counter tops and check writing stands -- plastic laminate Exterior lighting --- front and back doors Trap door for access under the building Pneumatic -- One each Hamilton pneumatic, installed overhead, exposed tube Conduit -- Ten alarm and telephone conduit drops Coffee bar with sink Reinforced vault room floor Canopy -- 12' x 16' , 1-1/2 lane drive-through to match building Foyer -- 6' X 10' with double glass doors and side windows Moe 8/89 ub;h-LIKH I 1 UN / ILL Ho . 11)—. -.., --1,4b!.-., 7.A1-0 . HU.y . i•-_, .;:..:i I-, t'2.:-9. ____ _.... , 11 mom ri._ —I r I 1 TI _ , i 1 . i: f a C .. 7) j i .1._ . ., [....i . !. 77-ii,--=-] - ' () rr -- t• ...... ..t e r• 6y. c I —4- . ---. ---I el r 1 [ ' I r1 .- .7. _ < •e - ... orvit I .._ ...,. , i I , _. 1 I 1 .... IO :-- ;-... c 1 t l'i : ‘ V I C, I r ..... ...1=1----.."=" 1 H • r _.. i ,!• . _ _ A I OM. , kJ III ID r 1------— t --2L75.= .::. .,,, 1 i•. P , —, .-, . 7 = rt 41 / o C I 1 0 I 6- •••< 0 L • , •1 _ 1 1/ !. * 0 . i i I I i a = , .01. gi er, :li 01 — y• 4:•• -17--:". —^--=..-:-..-. !...../ 0,, .P. •-; 0 z , • hi I ..., i I 0 1 o : 7., 1.i) I- 1• 11 —. II. F f n I LU-•..H I Lull I t L 1'40 . :.,1 1:.- .'.1.:..,..:.-7.,4 ID!:., H Li.id . 1•:.., • .:...;1 1 4 : i) :. I- 7/. r • 1 :1 -71- -- •.., r-• .._.... ..__ .. _ _ ... ._______ 1.11 i i •__. ••• _ .4,.i.l. - ,....! , _ ..... --- -:l• ., j . , — • : Ft .__ ._ ..... H :I 1:•-.pi: ..... _ • ; , ;11111i ... • • ;;.If -.- • ,•1 . .i. - ••, i I f I t --. • o1111 - - • i L 111J111 . . I' am. •I: ' I -----... — •4.I:I 1 _—.—____——... --- I- -.1.-. 04 •• • , — •_ _ • --- •: I:r.! '3 :•. . .. ,. ., _ ..,,.• t , _ _ . .... ••. - !ft_ ,•...1 1., .11 ' • . , .. •- [t;11 ____ . ... . ___ . ... 1 .ii'ft . . . . .... .. • :1.1.1 I i . .., • -4 ,1:1 „:1,/ ..] . , -7..: -/j.:.1••• .- — _ I ,..„ .• — i t'.1 • • ..... _ • '•l•; _ ... . J--. i• ' il • •-. i,:•,111 .11'.1 i• - l'•- ..- ••- . • -- :, I f'••1 t• ,- , • , •-- ' :-• ,-, • ' f[.` .1-•r i•"; .!,• - • • • — • !:•' 11 •• ;1 : 1 •..... - .•- "1' jlti-' • . • e• .; •• •:I • r , .• •-•ir...:1. tom. I i; I ______ 1.11 -, 1:'`i• • 1.' - - • _ e' .,,i 7• , • . 11 __ -- ,II. Awl, ;. , - • _ . .. : .. - -•- ••.! itt, ( 11, - rir.,:; ii:i.„,, — -r,_, r rri./J• • ..-- • - i I I •• - „..- ' irt •' .. .1 .I. . .. - • i.-:-1 ., 'i!JIII.I Vom ,.._ , 1 I.h • I 1 i . g .i., /i I ........ Z Ca = 1p • i•%I., .." 1:16 • 0 -...-...-.......... . .-..........-. I.1.1 .;1 "'. .52 " 0 0 •I:.t '}. 0.1" . IiI. 1 .;1 - ^ i i / - !. i ..):2 ...., • f:i CI 44 WC 1 7X i am. - .. .•1 0) .82, —4 ...... - ,1 ,i !.: -4 V ••••• • 1 ii t : i .1 lg • .. . i:2-1,, e) _ •." „ ______. ...!•••• 1•t : •1 •• - , . t .it ,.. 1, CROSSROADS NATIONAL BANK (IN ORGANIZATION) September 11 , 1989 City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gentlemen: Please find enclosed an application and 15 sets of site plans for the construction of the Crossroads National Bank building to be located at 700 West 79th Street in Chanhassen. Inasmuch as the property is currently owned by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and under contract with Twin Cities Bancorporation, Inc. ( f .k.a. TCNB, Inc. ) , I have left the signature line for the fee owner on the application blank so that it can be executed by the proper city authority. Please call either Jim Ruckle with Shea Architects or me if there are any questions regarding the enclosed. Sincerely, �r, / �" `''V SAE Thomas L. Mork President and CEO TLM:rls — Enclosure 10201 WAYZATA BLVD. 0330 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 612/949-9000 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ( 612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: TCNB Inc. OWNER: TCNB Inc. ADDRESS 10201 Wayzata Boulevard ADDRESS 10201 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka , MN 55343 Minnetonka , Mn 55323 Zip Code Zip Code -- • TELEPHONE (Daytime) 541-1000 TELEPHONE 541-1000 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 xxx Site Plan Review PROJECT NAME Crossroads Plaza PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION General Business District REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION General Business District PRESENT ZONING BG REQUESTED ZONING BG USES •PROPOSED Ranking SIZE OF PROPERTY 104 . 349 . Square Feet t LOCATION Market Roulevard and W 79th St REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Plan Review LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Part of lntS-7 Rlnek 1 Frontier Development Park. (over) 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 �� {/ � go/ /61E. Date °IVj1M Applicant . The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein — described. Signed By Date Fee Owner • Date Application Received Application Fee Paid $150 . 00 City Receipt No. — * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. — CITY QF CHANHASSEN1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Thomas Mork and Mr. Jim Ruckle FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: September 20, 1989 SUBJ: Crossroads Plaza Site Plan Submittal Staff has made a preliminary review of the Crossroads Plaza site plan submittal and has the following comments : Buildings 1. Elevations of the permanent bank building with the building material shown are required. 2. The temporary building must have footings and must be hooked up to sewer and water. 3 . A phasing plan is required to show how the construction for the new bank will be coordinated with existing business/ parking at the temporary structure. Circulation 1. The driving lane behind the bank must be 24 feet in width. 2 . Staff has concerns about the access points onto Market and West 79th Street. Specifically, the one on Market Boulevard should not be used as an entrance and the west one on West 79th Street is too close to Market Boulevard. 3 . Cross easements will have to be provided if the most easterly access from West 79th Street will be a shared access to the property to the east. Utilities and Drainage 1. PVC is not permitted within public right-of-way. RCP must be used in public right-of-way. 2 . Water should be intercepted on site prior to it entering the street (West 79th Street) . Mr. Mork and Mr . Ruckle September 20, 1989 Page 2 Miscellaneous 4 . A preliminary plat is required. The required revisions must be submitted by noon September 26, 1989, for the item to remain on the October 4, 1989, Planning Commission agenda. cc: Paul Krauss — Dave Hempel n n — _ 7, zzO 2 LA a to N. ZO til Z of — /1,," 1 _;;/ 1n / -4- P II 1 D it A'C -TO ....,• sa*. W \...." �. % 7C R 4 : ' ..t 1.-.7:1: di\i' ;.\I F.. j i ., , , :>„ i, ,. , 4., . .,, \ .. _i\,. ... ., �' ,. r - ---..�.T .. tt �Z loll{IIItI i ` AU - i }, aa ilii � tt / iR — fi *;hIhiiti .. i it u : li!l I i \k [21 /17 i - \ ''. 4,,__ ®IllyA1111111 ttr�\ • �1 \....„.....„..-- C, ,-^ $' P,*'�'i- 1(7 \ i .l�I , , A! 7 -. �:,LEi. _/® fid''' I i .di_ I ` - 1a - 3 '' ' 1 , WOODBRIDGE ,..2...,1., �- '-K • Shea Architects Inc. 10201 Wayzata Boulevard SITE PLAN .....�� w- w u.1m.•n./WA m.o•.1... Minnetonka Mn. 55343 VIM FV Vnpq�M.50ku olil]P NY r z0 2C/) to 20 0 , it. K0 / , A ). f ' ,rL , - ,� l w i , i , . _ .).)..,---A t '(. \ _ , i -,t, - , • ., 1. , V .w `i ez 3 VI Iiiiiiiill! 1 . -.Ie. ...t.,.... /i. s N.,, ... ...... c. -- • oft / + ...i ft: I j( lamil ,\ .e \\\ 1 1 I • \ \ \ ......,---- ----------\ _ Aini I ,--.---_, 0 %VIM • \ , \.....„...___ -- -- \ _ _ `1 i l l�, Q�,Q,'� 1 R ` i! rI;i, . I. ! ;�- :1r1\\;: WOODBRIDGE Site Plan With _ �. _ _� : Shea Architects Irtc B 10201 Wayzata Boulevard Modular Banking Facility ;i..--• : ;;*„a w " " • Minnetonka Mn. 55343 *MI.110 "' ....soa..sucasioo a, r�..m,�.«a.w wlm 2 i• ', if ( -[ • i nT — m /v I k Z lI j �v \ Z L o 1 Z O l i �_ cn K CD 1 1 i" -o r I —I, 51/ D _ {I 'it ii 1; ili C 3 , I. . ;. L =\ t ( ice , tIs \s\ '; \ II 11,! # • - I\ 1 . I'+ri l'! - .L.. -1 II ti ; 1 : , � i ;,,� i/ �y . til -i _ ' ( r f,}, €ar= t .. f3 S� 44 . _` . ` _ i It i — II ti I'1 ,. I y 11I I. 1 l'ik, ' . A . iv I ,.. ,.. ��'OODBRIDGE ELEVATIONS __._ :_ Shea Architects enc. 3 :;: _ . . .. .00,.9...x., 1r!C- —i irtf,N, ‘4, •',74,41.4 i-5 • `I'�!ij lii• ;ililll�llli • C:3� :c rS NM ,/ / .. • n n N xi — 1• Ill �d! m O y [1!:7 7:17. 9a.ii;: .%.)." I 41%,, .: T 0 ! _ ,i01:1;-..':,,,,,,(-1....:., . .!:; -,\.1,: ; ,, ,e gy ,;. it:1 `-, \� // '-t• I// •\e0011 ' ...: .-- . PA r- - ,i' 1iA ' ' 1 1€'I i 1'1.11 ° I Nil i',, f. - j �!ii 1�''�1;�I�if y�'I II it its 1I 1!3 - J 11 11 r►� 11.. i jI' 1110►i4;11IliJoI; il. r• ' 0li ( i11 ` I-1IN .01ill 111,III11 : � } a3 — r 'I II 1111 +lflt;. I 1 i I I ! ' 1 I,:+ 11 1•I II t 11 •: .• : . \\ ' 2: 3: 42, ., VA , iliillilIl Iiiiil 0 �,1i1I1 (, ii, ('ly0 iii -ii1 �;. ,r..1 4 r.1 - il11 +Eee H itIyltai* i '7: b ri- Ijii i; I' fIS ;!��111,,�i Ii IiE+l �� .'II'Il! 1•f' Ili If it;l II 11 11511 — IIl .1•r11tIIIlE1. iiyri0.llEE if1 -li'. s I :'v"A........ , , • 3: t ' 11 111 illi r1� +1 ill f,I 1{!� Il ��j�f t'E • I I I1I 111 it 111 ` .1 !II !I ti et; ce • , t1 I — • I i .1 if I1 11 11 11 t,I I ' 11� . .. �� ct� i +r u!I! li el:s: t 'tl l lr — �1 1!S I t°' % 44,r r1 l '( ";l iii i!'i t 4 in ° - _ t ; I Il fret Il.0:`pt 0,0 !s,1'r .1 Z t - N — p I; 411 1 r!iiil i; 09 x111111 1 I I --"��r r t 4 — 1 ill 1 1i• 14;1 I i'+i 11 all It I !' ,• - \ 'f1•. J Ij• 1 ll!Fill 1 ili 11 i,�`7 ll i L t s. •r-1 1!q``1 1 • A 1 , to I 1 ' t 1 t'�' ! fa•I ii '1 -•,.. . ,-,•,... ; Y ' t l Il' I it1 p it tip ij iv . : . . .',;•;: lel — 1 Il il .1iiII_1'.h 1 .1 • 40 :: `-' _ - i` :rt•Ia:11.CI:CI:I•.�1' I:CC�' „ � iriii. rIt , t; �;L�•t'•i ,`•'. `44 r J tit ` ` t th i - , 1 F, :1.,--, -4 - ' `s :jIHfjiiiJIio �:n 21 r ' , ` i 1 1 1 ii tPt1 \ \ \-\ \0 ` — itt 1 .hi ., Th • X1111 0 — ' 3n ., 'r x \ 111 ` f • — TC-- 1,! -aj \ 1• i' -. y-c t E f iii[ i Elt Ili; • — I.•� W OODBRI DGE PRELIMINARY I.AtiSCAPt'.MAN •.•" '-u• _: - :. Shea Architects Inc , 10201 Wayzata Boulevard NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION '..NLI...dual 1020.CX/a.••fel Minnetonka Mn. 55343 I . .,,,_ ...:,%.. . . . • . Aibiw �..4 • . 1 _ 11: ; , m tii . 1., I A-, 4-k- 2 1. 31'n a5 8'e'ri 4i\ ��` • 11 111 y� 111 pPi P 31 11 RNP - ,i 11 MI e i i'�..F E111 �i L% a • ft' %>r• ,,_` r7 ;1 '1.1,\\\,. • Ili r , , ' ,I villit/ -'::.t,v, , \\ _ ,. . . .„ ilimi . .k t :041. 1 t I� ti I _ � 33 � 1 ^ 11I Fa iiP - � / 1 i 111ca - e . il1a • i - fIN \\\\\111 1 a li s i /�� 1 1 1 V x ri 11} / ! r�.. \ate ip \ �\� 1 t X11` 1 11 1. : !E la \ r z _ lijl 'tea�!e a!! 'iIE. eris la is ;!I ' \\ % 1 0 Ii I.• er I Ii R fi a % \ 1 ` ,..'' Ir �1EEe! R !i it ! Et , 1s1 DI{ E�� II If 'I 1 �" ti g Iii ii' _ :l1 ;I 1aII1 t II Il i uiili I : . r t pjti It its - sliti 4i! p � ;�11 � rnii, oz >. . l �ii.1 � �� Ali � ° i . _... .•.•.-4-0,--_ z � ',) Oil Iiiii o z ' ' 11 - ; III N I O t J• :11� 11 = I� a'tiI ISI II . ill . ;. A yl 1 — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner '— PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL - FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 12 ACRE OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. Public Present : Name Address Fred Hoisington Consultant Herb Bloomberg Bloomberg Companies John Rice Attorney for Bloomberg Companies Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies _ Dr .+ Bonnett Veterinary Clinic Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Bill Brisley AMCON Todd Kristoferson AMCON Jim Winkles Applicant Rick Martins Marcor Development Jo Ann Olsen and Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson with Lotus Realty. I 'd first like to introduce the development team that are here. Some are still on their way from other parts of the world but Rick Martins with Marcor Development is one of the partners in this. The Bloomberg Companies. Herb' s here with his attorney, John Rice is another partner in this particular program. An then the construction and the design are being done by AMCON who you ' re familiar with because they' re doing a number of buildings in town and here are Bill Brisley who is the architect who has been assigned to this and will address some of the issues that you have . And Todd Kristoferson who is a project manager . If I may, the way I 'd like to follow through with what we have to do now is I 'd like to have, if this is okay with you Mr . Chairman, first have Bill kind of go over an overall view point of what he sees as an architect and planning of this center and give you some in dept feeling. We'd like to hear from the public then, if there are some people here, and then we'd like to address the recommendations of the planning department and then turn it over to you. Is that okay with you if we follow that procedure? So first of all I 'd like to introduce Bill Brisley Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 2 Bill . — Bill Brisley: Thank you very much. My name is Bill Brisley. I am the project architect for fMarket� Square. I work for AMCON Corporation and the are the design/build contractor who will be the builder . The number of design makeovers on this project have been numerous to date but I belies,,, the process has been a positive affect on the current design. Each change has been an aesthetic response to concerns voiced by several people on t e staff and many people on the development team. What I have rendered frc . all this testimony in terms of architecture for Market Square shopping center is that there is a unifying composition which has gone on before -4.n Chanhassen and there should be an integration by any design which is yet t come. What I think might summarize this is an image of a town style where shops are on a main street, friendly to the pedestrian. Warm and invit'i g in it' s setting . A town style that is fresh and unique and yet clearly embraces the past with it ' s sensibilities of massing and architectural + detail . A town style with a feeling of progressive values using current design ideas without falling into the trendy metaphores of the day. So — feel very comfortable noting that because of the varied input and concer of the City of Chanhassen. Each of our design submissions have improved towards this goal . This has allowed us to focus on a venacular that will not only be compatible with the community but be an asset to it' s future development . I feel that this current design is the synthesis of all the varied stylistic concerns and yet is consistent and a cohesive solution tc the important community issue . I also believe that the drawings and renderings that sit before you now represent not only an attractive building that the people ofChanhassenwill be proud of but an enhancement to the informative town style that is emerging in Chanhassen. Let me nc— describe the design. The building massing is organized to minimize the negative effects of a very long building with basically the same type of use the full length. Large anchor buildings will be 20 feet high and — pulled forward. The shorter infill buildings between the larger builder s will be only 18 feet high and will be recessed back between 4 and 8 feet . The materials used on the larger builders will be cement plaster or stucco in varying shades of light to medium gray. The shorter infill buildings will be sided with gray woodlap siding and have white trim boards all around . The buildings will have 2 foot steps in elevation occurring 8 times as it extends from north to south on the site. These steps will — occur at the transition points between the lower and higher buildings ar really lend to the variety of the massing . For a unifying effect I have given all the buildings a+ 2 foot high warm medium gray rock face base — pediment that extends up to 4 feet at the piers and the corners and runs around the full perimeter of the building . Also unifying the whole is continuous color of burgandy coping for the top corgalJcourse at the eave. There will be step corbling at all the roof edges on the project. The — length of the eave will be punctuated by slight notches over the piers o the low retail buildings and by the step gabled parapets on the anchor buildings. All shop fronts will be articulated by individual burgandy — canvas awnings at geometric intervals between the piers . These awnings will not be the rubberized translucent and back lighted variety. There will be oranmentation on the buildings in the form of stucco cannon balls center on the middle steps of the parapets. All piers will have a blue green ceramic tile medallion centered at 10 feet high. These medallions Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 3 will continue on the back of the center at the same height and interval . At each pier you will see a burgandy goose necked decorative light fixture with it ' s illumination focused downward . This same light fixture will als be found over each rear entry tenant door . The stucco building fronts wil be articulated with recessed panels painted darker shades of gray to enhance their depth and sculptural impact. All shop fronts will be clear mil finished aluminum. The back wall of the center will be 14 foot 8 stepping down 2 feet at the transition points . The material used will be an alternate from smooth, light gray, single score concrete block and darker gray rock faced block stripes and will have the same gabled parapet treatment at the center of the anchor buildings. Again, the back wall wil have the same 2 foot and 4 foot rock face base pediment details as the front walls. The tenant rear entry doors will be painted out, door and frame, blue green to match the ceramic tile medallions . There is a distinct change from the facade you see in the renderings and line sketche and the one in the colored version that I ' ve passed around which I might d right now. The most developed version of the design is the one with the diamond shaped opening at the center of the gable of the anchor tenant. Suspended into space will be brightly painted burgandy steel tubes criss crossing the opening . At the intersection of these tubes will be a 16 x 1 inch painted steel frame holding a medallion of similar ceramic tile found elsewhere on the wall . Somewhat visible by day through the diamond -- openings will be the brighly painted undersides of the blue green steel roofing seams and burgandy structural components of the gabled roof. The sense of drama will be heighten at night when the inside of the gables wil be glowing from uplighting within. The effect creating sillouettes of the suspended medallions. The lowest portion of the diamond opening will stil be 5 ' 4" off the surface of the roof providing the necessary parapet for mechanical screening . This construction will extend back 24 feet from the front face where it will die into a similarly detailed stepped and gabled parapet wall of stucco. The side walls of this front mechanical screen will be 9 ' 4" off the roof . I think it ' s important that You look at these sketches to understand what we' re talking about. A similar screen at the back wall will be 4 feet at the side walls and extend 12 feet forward into the building terminating into another stepped and gabled parapet wall as does the front section and will have medallions centered on the stucco gabled area in lieu of the diamond openings. Note the colored drawings . Real elevation at liquor store. Mechanical units on the lower retail roof will be kept forward in the front half of the building and will be screene by the 5 foot of parapet wall at the front. For the view from the rear , the mechanical units will be painted light gray and this is on the lower buildings . Will be painted light gray to match the back of the parapet walls to draw as little attention to them as possible. I have not extende the gabled roof as requested by the City for aesthetic reasons. Much will be lost if we are required to run the gabled roof the full depth of the buildings . The functional purpose of such a tube type roof would be suspect from any casual observer . There also wouldbea very clumsy part of the back wall where the sides of the gabled roof at an elevation of 24 feet would meet the back wall at 14 ' 8" . This 9 ' 4" drop would look awkward at best. I believe that the City' s interest lie in having a well composed and interesting roof line with interacting shapes and gables for the long distance views. This design meets that need very well . Are there any questions? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 4 _ Conrad : Are there questions on what has been presented tonight versus V""a was in the kit? I 'm having a tough time understanding exactly what' s changed . I see what you ' ve handed out but it was hard to follow your description. You know what you' re talking about. I think it' s real — difficult for us to visualize what you' re saying . Bill Brisley: What changed from last time is a lot. What' s changed from what I was talking about which you see in those pictures is basically th s holes and my decision to not have them just a flat piece of stucco but actually open it up to let it be a lot more exciting . Let the structure show and have the opportunity for lightings at night. That is really th— only difference. Conrad: So the diamond type? Bill Brisley: The diamond . That is the thing that ' s different . And that' s something that' s new to Jo Ann tonight too. Erhart : Is the diamond , can you do that from inside or that' s just external appearance only? Bill Brisley: Just external . Erhart: Is that going to have a glass in front? Bill Brisley: No . To purposely show the painted structure. Erhart: Will it be lighted inside? — Bill Brisley: Yes . Erhart : So at night you' ll be able to see a light inside there? Bill Brisley: No. You won' t be able to see a light. What you' ll see is the same structure. You' ll see the ribbing . Erhart: No, but I mean it will be lighted inside so. . . Mechanical things are underneath those? — Bill Brisley: Are underneath both of these things. Erhart: Oh, they' re inside these? Bill Brisley: That is a point I should make is that these are also canvas screened for the large building. — Erhart : Okay, and why did you change from what was on the big drawings to this? What was the reason for the change? The ones that we got versus — your diamond . What was the purpose? Bill Brisley: Just to further articulate the building. Give it mote originality. Give it more feeling to not be the same as the others. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 5 Erhart : Okay, the square thing in the front . What is that? What is that materials that are in that? Bill Brisley: Ceramic tiles . Erhart : The thing right in the middle of the diamond? Bill Brisley: Yes . Erhart : Ceramic tile over structure steel? Bill Brisley: Yes. Erhart : The color? Bill Brisley: That teal green. Blue green. Conrad : From a design standpoint, Paul and Jo Ann, what were we talking about the last time this was in? Speak to me about what you see versus what we saw before. Improvements or? Krauss : We think architecturally the building ' s made a lot of progress . I ' ll let Jo Ann detail some of the changes that we saw from last time but we have a point of clarification . We were concerned that the building not have false Hollywood fronts from one side and then look like a brick box o cinderblock box from the TH 5 side which will be very visible. We came up with the idea then of asking that that roof feature be carried through sor of as a barrel vault to the back . It now appears as though there ' s a complimentary vault. Wherever there' s a vault on the front, there' s a complimentary vault on the back so effectively if you' re looking at it to the north from TH 5, it will appear as though+ there is that vault up there We haven' t seen a real perspective of how that works but that may get our concern. Erhart : Is there going to be a model available of this whole thing? You' re not planning on making a model? Bill Brisley: We' re not planning . . . Erhart: But there' s a diamon on the grocery store as well? Bill Brisley: No . They have a different design. This is a clear elevation. . .but the grocery store has a very different one. Erhart : Okay, so you' re just making 2 diamonds? Bill Brisley: Four . They' re on these larger anchor tenants outside of Super Value. Super Value being one large anchor tenant and then we have four more. Drug store, hardward store. . . Erhart : Drug store , video , Lotus Body Shop. Planning Commission Meeting September - Page 6 Krauss : Is the tile feature and the lighting effects that are produced Th this front going to be repeated on the back as well? Bill Brisley: Unfortunately I can ' t do that on the back because it' s ton. low. That' s only possible because of the amount of parapets I have ther . If I didn ' t have the back. . .but the tile will be there in back. It will b actually more like what the other design was. The back still looks like that . Erhart : Was this original drawing , those were going to be false fronts? Krauss: Yes . Erhart : And the mechanical was going to be right behind it? Olsen: They' re going to still try to hide some of the mechanical under this . . . Erhart : In the new one definitely. Olsen: But even in the old one. — Bill Brisley: There must have been a misunderstanding because I ' ve always planned it to go back. . . We did not plan them on the back though. . . I f felt that it needed that . That the false front really was not very good looking in any application so I gave that some depth too. I 'm very plea_e with the way it ' s turned out . Erhart : Is there anything else like this in the Twin Cities? Bill Brisley: I don' t think so. I mean there are a lot of . . .that are — drawn from different things in different parts of the country but this i not. . . Emmings: You talked about the mechanical units . During your presentati n Something about them being colored to be less visible. + Bill Brisley: That is on the lower roofs that don ' t have as many gables— Emmings: Are they going to be screened someway? Bill Brisley: They are definitely screened . The front parapet is 5 fee higher than+ the roof. Emmings : So they' re screened from the front . How about ft_om TH 5? — Bill Brisley: Well from TH 5, I 'm not sure they' re much of an issue but form the back, any point which you can see it from the back, they will 13,2.- just �just painted a very light gray to match the parapet wall behind it so sa from 78th, you could see it . They' ll blend into the back of the parapet that they' re. . . We' ll keep them forward in the building . In the front _ half so that their outline won' t. . . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 7 Emmings : It seems to me that whenever we' ve done buildings we' ve always said that mechanical units have to be completely screened . Does this meet that? Whatever that means? Olsen : As long as it' s not real visual . What we usually get then to have them totally screen are those wood panels which would look even worse. These, we told them before if they come up with something unique that will serve the purpose. Emmings : Okay, so you' re satisfied with this? Olsen: Well I still haven' t really seen anything that shows what we' re looking at. Emmings : Should there be something that , is that one of the things that you're requesting? Erhart : A color rendering of it? Olsen: The elevations to show. Emmings : So on those elevations the mechanical units should be present as opposed to what we' re. . . Olsen : To show how they' re going to be screened . Emmings: Okay. Batzli : Did you request elevations from 78th and TH 5? Or from all elevations where you could see them? I don' t remember your wording on tha one. Olsen : The specific condition was to show us from TH 5 and we were discussing from the west and south. Everything' s going to be very visible Bill Brisley: We have quite a few views there already. I could add 5 or more to it. Olsen : But you don' t have anything from, do you have something from TH 5? Bill Brisley: That basically is the view from TH 5. It' s just zoomed in. If it would serve the purpose to push that way back so the drawing was very, very little on the page, then it would look like it would actually look like. Olsen : So is the mechanical equipment on here and it wouldn ' t be seen at all? Bill Brisley: It wouldn' t be seen at all . . . Olsen: Do you have one that's showing from the rear with the rear of the building looks like? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 8 _ Bill Brisley: Not from the northwest. —' Olsen : Do you have any rear buildings on here? Bill Brisley: No I didn' t because I haven' t , in this particular progratr I have not developed the back. . .Really the detail comes from this straigut line elevation. Conrad : The awnings are fabric or metal? Bill Brisley: The awnings are fabric . — Conrad : Lighted did you say? Bill Brisley: No. . . Conrad : What' s the lighting for the front of the building? Bill Brisley: It' s all individual . It' s really. . .off of these individual . . . Batzli : Is the signage back lit? Is that what the revision is in here? Bill Brisley: Free standing individual with. . .not sillonette. . . Erhart : The diamonds are made of metal roof? Bill Brisley: There' s a metal roof over the, when the gables are made o—t of metal . It' s standing seam metal . Erhart : What does it, the rear diamond . Okay, the back part of the — diamond , what does it sit on or what does the bottom. . . Bill Brisley: Most of the construction and the walls that this will frame into in the front and back is against an insultation stucco system. The roof itself, the standing seam roof will be. . .structured of tube steel a d these panels , or these standing seam metal panels will be laid on. . . Erhart : So it doesn' t really sit on a roof. It sits on a post in the rear? Bill Brisley: It sits on posts that you can ' t see because they' re on th inside of this stucco wall that' s articulated with the. . . It ' s part of ..n mechanical . You really won' t be able to see it . Erhart : According to this picture you can see it. From this view You c I see the posts . Bill Brislev: You mean the vertical? Horizontal? Erhart: Yeah. You can see the posts that holds up the rear of the roof.. Bill Brisley: I want that to show. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 9 Erhart: Do you? Bill Brislev: Yes definitely. That' s what holds the medallion in the middle. Erhart : No , I 'm talking about the post on the rear part right in there. Is that a post holding this roof up? Bill Brisley: No . That' s the wall . Erhart: So this just isn' t hanging out in space? Bill Brisley: It' s not hanging out in space. But I do have the back ope quite a bit for air and mechanical also for aesthetic reasons for the lighting . I don' t want to get it so dark that you can' t see out the sides of it. . . Conrad : How do I read the north elevation diagram where Market Square, Lawn and Sport is segmented here? Bill Brisley: That' s on a diagonal . On the site plan there ' s a little roof that ' s on a diagonal in the corner . That 's what you' re looking at. Conrad : To the right of that, what is that? In here. Bill Brisley: That' s this section here of the low retail . To the left is more low retail . Conrad : So that' s not really a north elevation? Bill Brisley: No it' s not . Erhart : Bill , do you have anything on here that shows what the veterinary building is going to look like? Bill Brisley: I don' t have anything that we ' ve rendered but you have a copy in your packet . . .submission. Erhart : Okay, so that' s just a regular roof. Bill Brisley: That' s just a regular hip roof . Erhart : Why is that building separate from the rest of the shopping center? What' s the functional purpose of that? Bill Brisley: Do you mean separate in terms of design or separate in term of . . . Erhart : Separate building as opposed to having it incorporated within the shopping center . Bill Brisley: I can ' t really answer that . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 10 — Brad Johnson: The concept that we' re working on is that the ownership c the center, what you see here, will be under one roof. Then the balance o the center will be, which could be here for example , will be different — outlots. We haven' t had that experience here in town but this is prettl standard on a lot of shopping centers like at Rainbow and places like that where they have different ownership situations because they' re financed _ differently or they won' t finance. . . What you' ll find is that these retailers don' t mind renting except for one, he' s going to own it you SE and this is going to be owned . Then other people would prefer to own it. Own their own property. To complete the development, given the absorpti—n here, we have to have some ownership available because there isn ' t enoug rental demand to absorb the whole site. Okay? So we' ll break this up int different outlots . This may be just one large outlot sold off to somebody and then you come back and go through this process for that specific building . The application you have, because Dr . Bonnett is here and has done successfully in, how many veterinary clinics have you built so far? Dr . Bonnett : Five. Brad Johnson : Five of them. All of which are the best veterinary clinics in the city. That particular building he wants to own and they approach d me, and we+ could not a site in the city to build an individual building which people could own that small . They have large sites but no small — sites. So what we' ve done is then provided for that ability up here because we believe there' s a market for it and it' s proving. We've got people already speaking for this . They' re just not ready to come forth with a plan yet so as part of your PUD we' ll determine that this will — exist . You probably see this on every shopping center and quite a . . . th next 10 years. As you know this is the first time anybody' s done that but this is a pretty standard way of approaching it. Does that answer your — question? Erhart : Yeah. I guess so. Brad Johnson: They just want to own it , that' s all . Erhart : There' s no problem having a restaurant next to a veterinary — clinic? Brad Johnson: No . And that happens to be right across the street from .th institutional . . . Everybody' s trying to be a little of retail now. Get high visibility. Banks are . Things like that . You have one right acro.,s from Southdale? Veterinary clinic? Dr . Bonnett : Southdale . There' s one right down here right across from h Eden Prairie Center there. And there' s a restaurant right beside it. Brad Johnson : So that ' s pretty common . At least for the veterinarys in town, they all want to buyhis site later on because he' s done suchla good job. His business is developing veterinary practices and then sell them_ off later on and there' s a big demand for that. It' s sort of like franchise veterinary. . . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 11 Conrad: Any other questions of Bill at this time? Ellson: I just had one. It' s probably a dumb one but from here it looks like these step downs is a ramp and on the other things it look like it' s an actual step down . When you go from one level to the next. This is lik drawn in almost like a wheelchair ramp could be used or what have you. Ye is it truly more like a step like you see on here? Bill Brisley: The detail 's really not shown in these drawings. What we d at the transition point is we have a few steps and a railing and then at that point we have, on the site plan it shows that we have a 1 in 20 ramp that goes from that high point at the transition, out and around and back down low where the stairs go to. I have a picture's worth a thousand words. I ' ll show you a photograph of where this has been done at another center very successfully and it works real well . It will be a lot more heavily landscaped but it works well . The City's also wanted access goin onto the sidewalk in many places and that is. . . Conrad: I 'm interested in the furthest part north. You really don' t have any kind of structure kind of leading the center off . Off of 78th. It' s low unit. It' s your restaurant or whatever and it seems like it would be good statement to make yet there' s nothing there. Bill Brisley: That particular building is finished all the way around the same as if it were the front . There really isn ' t a back to that building . That is because of that position that it' s in. Which just kind of happens to be where that' s where part of that retail fell and the first anchor was not. . .but I have not for one minute during this entire process thought there was a problem because it' s very soft . Very nice with detailed . . . start out with a bang or build up to a crescendo. . . Conrad : How many feet long is that one side that that leads into? Is tha 300 feet? Bill Brisley: Looking at the site plan , we have really. . . I don' t really think it' s going to feel like a very long, straight building. There' s going to be a lot of shadow lines . A lot of different materials. A lot o different heights. It' s going to step down the whole site. It' s really quite varied . Conrad : What is the elevation , and maybe this is. From the north looking at the end of that building, where' s the elevation on what we' re looking at? Bill Brisley: I 'm not sure I follow you. Conrad: That would be the drive thru that ' s been proposed? Bill Brisley: Yes. It ' s not drawn . . . Conrad : I don' t know if I agree with you because West 78th where all the traffic is and it seems like a way to get people in so I 'm not sure I agre Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 12 with your perspective that we build up and have this crescendo later on.— It' s, from my perspective, people are interested in something close and they see it and if it ' s attractive it might entice somebody in. Batzli : But it' s really the most heavily landscaped area too. That nor h face there. I don' t know. I agree. Initially when you first install this that would be, I think a crucial elevation view to take a look at but I think in 5 to 10 years , hopefully this stuff takes off and it really softens whatever you' re going to be looking at anyway. Conrad : I 'm curious about the backside of that unit because I don' t war— the backside to look like the backside of the rest of it. I really and 1 the way through, in talking to Brad , what we' re doing is backing up a majo shopping center to a road and it's pretty, you soften it a great deal si.ac we' ve been talking but still , it' s the back side of a building and there are no accesses through that I know of from the backside to the front sine so it is definitely the back of a shopping center even though it' s a on _ major road so I 'm kind of concerned. Is that it? Bill Brisley: This is it right here. Conrad : See, that' s at sort of a major crossroad or a major visual area If I were running a restaurant, I think I 'd want more, maybe there' s a restaurant buyer at this point in time but you' ve got great visibility — there and whyputa backside up against two roads? It shows on Monterey and it shows+ on 78th. I don' t think that ' s what I would want if I were .. restaurant owner . I 'm not sure that that' s what I would want as a plannin commissioner to be honest . That part bothers me about the design right — now. Other comments? It' s a public hearing so are there comments from anybody in the audience? I think Brad set this up. He wanted to present the overview of how it looks with Bill ' s assistance and then get any kind. of feedback from anybody here. Is there any feedback specifically on wh t you've heard so far? Batzli : Bill , before you wander away. On this site plan that you were showing us. It' s shown with all of the parking developed. Is the parki._g on the east side still future parking? Bill Brisley: Yes it is. Those lines are still dotted . Batzli : Oh, those are dotted on there? _ Bill Brisley: Yes . Conrad : Brad , do you want to get into the next part of your? Rick Martins: We' re going to respond to the staff report. We want to thank you and the staff for the manner in which we' ve been able to proce--3 to this date. We've had a plan that we' ve certainly had some costs adde to and we' re working hard to make our numbers work to adjust our proformer and so on but we think that the way in which we work together with you has been very good and we think that in the end the building and the site design that we have is a good one that will work well for the community ..n ,Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 13 for the project . We want to have Brad come up and discuss some issues fro a leasing and marketing point of view and Bill come back and discuss some issues from an architectural point of view. Some of those already have. The leasing issues, in the end we' re building this building. We' ll start off about 65% pre-leased . We' ll have the hardest 20, 000 square feet to lease so issues of circulation and access and signage and so on are very important to the ultimate success of this project so any cooperation or assistance you can give us certainly would be appreciated. If you want to mark this down, just to make it easy, we have gone through and we will giv you the points in the staff report that we concur with. Then Brad and Bil will come back and address the issues that we have some comment on. So starting with the back where it's summarized, there' s 1 through 25 I believe. Emmings : Are you on page 9 are you? Rick Martins : Starting on page 9, right . Okay, we concur with number 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 , 20, 21, and 26. So with that I ' ll ask, I think Brad to come up and to speak to certain issues . Thank you. Brad Johnson: As Rick said, we' ve been working through this process with the committee of planners and we think that we 've been trying hard to fulfill the needs of the community and also try to match what we' ve tried to attempt to do with Town Square and some of the other projects that we have done here . The problem we' re having is this is a real big project. It' s not small in scale so it' s hard to make it finite. A couple of issue that will be always ongoing and I think one is that because the site inevitably backs onto TH 5, it' s impossible since we put the pond in, to — put anything in between there and TH 5 and the railroad tracks and you probably would not place a building on that site to face the railroad tracks because that' s TH 5. The issues of screening and things like that , this is just a general thing , are tough to handle because we also have to figure out how to get circulation back there and loading and things like that. Because however people are choosing that site as tenants, such as Super Value, they' re choosing it because of visibility and the last thing think both the City, the tenants and the developer want to have happen in this design, is that from TH 5 this is an unattractive place to come to because from what we read , this will be the most attractive way to get people into our center . So I think when we talk about TH 5 visibility, we want to make it good. One of our problems is, it does rise 30-40 feet back there and it' s difficult , it' s just a different kind of a situation that you have to deal with but I think our interests are the same. Then Ladd , to address your questions about the cap on the north end . We don' t have ' a tenant yet for that particular location and if it was a restaurant , obviously it'd be all windows . See it would change. Right now we have no idea what that end will look like as far as a tendancy. We have some idea that we' ll deal with as we go through the process but until we get a tenan for that site, it ' s difficult to design exactly what it' s going to look like . It certainly is , as you say, an important part of the center . We just don ' t know what the tenant is going to be. MEM Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 14 _ Conrad : Brad , I just think it' s a missed opportunity. The way I see it— designed right now, I don' t think you' re taking advantage of the opportunity. You' re designing it to kind of fit something . Brad Johnson: All I 'm saying is we have yet to have a tenant speak for that site . The restaurants want to be more in the center because it' s lus expensive. They want bigger piece. There' s no parking there. We have stacking . We' ve already addressed . It ' s just an interesting problem wh c we' re going to address so I 'm just speaking that it' s not done in that a e yet. We' ll probably be back with a different concept inevitably because we' re going to have�a tenant and maybe that tenant will want to make sur of that but right now we don' t have anybody. As far as vacation , let' s e through the items. I 've got a certain+ selection of items that I 'm suppose to deal with. One is the vacation of a portion of 78th Street for _ right-of-way purposes . Emmings : Give us a number . Brad Johnson : Number 2. I 'm just going to go right down but of course o don' t have my crib sheet. Mine say Brad. Your ' s don' t say that. We woul prefer that we maintain that right-of-way and provide an easement to you- for that rather than transfer it to the city. The reason for that is th n that would count into our total size of our lot and it makes it easier for us to meet the setback requirements and that type of thing . We would prefer to do it that way and we would request that we do. As far as Outgo A would be accessed. . . Erhart: Excuse me Brad but isn ' t that the same reason that you wanted t`e sidewalk easement? j Brad Johnson : Yes . That' s right . Exactly right . _ Krauss: Should we respond to these things? Conrad : Yeah. Headla : Yeah, you looked like you wanted to say something . Krauss: Our concern with that is, the way we' ve proposed it, there' s go n to be a second land on a public street that will serve this project and serve as a turn lane. It' s a public boulevard. It should be a public street and not privately maintained . One of the proposals they kicked around was, if it ' s actually got a private easement over it, that they would plow snow on it and be responsible for it but it doesn ' t really work well . It is a public street . It will be used by public traffic. It wil accommodate the traffic that' s not necessarily going to the center . To that extent we think that that should be a public boulevard. Whatever we don' t need to accommodate that , we' ve stated that we' re willing to vacates. Erhart: Your reason for wanting an easement, to use the total land area i calculations of coverage and so forth? _ Brad Johnson: Coverage. Sale. Whatever . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 15 Erhart : And that ' s part of the PUD. You already exceed the coverage. Brad Johnson: Setback requirements. Erhart: You already exceed the coverage and we' re willing to give that as part of the PUD anyway. Conrad : I think setback is more of an issue. Erhart: Is there a problem with setbacks if you make that? Brad Johnson: It' s just when you do a site, you like to have as much as you have and there' s a 25 foot setback requirement there. I 'm just saying that' s our opinion. 79th Street is owned privately as an easement to the City and the City maintains it. This is done in the City quite a bit. I own the street and . . . Ellson : Is there any other portion of West 78th Street that ' s done this way? Olsen : Not that I know of. Brad Johnson : I 'm just saying , we' re just addressing and you may have concerns and I 'm not saying the staff is wrong. That' s our opinion. As far as Outlot A is concerned , only access internally. We can ' t, at this point agree in any way with that.+ The reason for that is we do not know who the tenant' s going to be there in the future. What type of tenant tha we' re going to have or owner of that site and secondly, that site is going to be owned independently of the center . It ' s going to be owned by the Bloomberg Companies and as part of their ownership, they want the right to be able to develop that as fully as they can and we feel that it can be accessed, at least by right-in/right-out only safely and we' re prepared to deliver you traffic reports and so forth to discuss that from a technical issue. Not tonight but we will hire a firm to come in and discuss that from a technical point . Can this be done or can it not be done and depending of the design people, that it can be done. Batzli : You say right-in/right-out on West 78th Street? Brad Johnson: And also on Market Blvd. . Now we' ll have to locate where that ' s going to be as again we' re without a tenant. This prohibits us fro doing that at all . We just can' t have that happen at this point. Clayton would you like to address that issue? Clayton Johnson: John will talk about it later . Brad Johnson: Okay, because I think that' s a request that probably is quite unfair at this point. Certainly without any traffic studies or anything like that to base that decision on. So we just don' t agree with that one. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 16 — Krauss : In making that proposal , we base that on traffic safety concerr —. There' s going to be a lot of turning movements into and out of that cent r as is . The closer you get to the corner , you' re going to interfere with traffic that's turning, traffic that' s going straight. You' re going to have the merging movement . If there ' s a right turn lane out to the fort , what if those people want to turn to the north? They' re going to have ty merge across traffic in a short distance to the corner? Those properties will be, or that outlot will be independently owned but it is a part of —h overall PUD and should function as such. Itwasour perspective. It ' s _o very good access on two sides. It has very good visibility all around and we felt that the additional access that ' s being proposed is hazardous . — Yeah, we could do additional design studies or have a traffic engineer d that but we've seen enough of these studies ourselves to say that if a report said anything different, it would likely be suspect. — Brad Johnson : Yeah and as I said , I think that ' s a technical issue whic.. the professionals can deal with. Item 7, the site plan shall be revised t remove the drive thru. We can ' t agree with the final statement is that— the PUD contract will state that a drive thru will not be permitted in t a location. Now that ' s an ideal site for a drive thru from the marketing point of view. We do agree that we should meet normal safety standards of stacking and that type of thing but we do not feel that the PUD agreemen should simply state that there can be no drive thru on that end. It may have a different design that meets the people ' s standards here but we can' t, at this point, limit ourselves. I 'd say every tenant who has loo e at that center has an interest in that and it' s not a McDonalds or an_yth_n like that. Probably some way of solving the problem of stacking . The planning group brought up, we just don' t have a tenant there and we'd — prefer just to come back and present our solution at the time we have a tenant. So we' d like the development agreement to allow that subject to your approval but not to straight out say we can' t do it. — Emmings : Who uses drive thrus other than McDonalds and banks? Brad Johnson: Yougart stores. Pizza stores. They' re all pick-ups now. Dry cleaners . Everybody has a pick-up or a drive thru. Some are call aheads. You don' t drive. Like a pizza place, you hardly have stacking because you don ' t line up and order and then wait an hour for it to be — prepared although some do. It ' s becoming a big . Video stores now have drive thrus. You think about it. You come in and the place is closed and you want to drop it off . All those kinds of places . We don' t happen to— have the tenants there and it' s a good location for that type of thing . The reason it' s a good location is you can get back out onto Monterey. ,n rest of the center is just too deeptodo that type of thing . So we've go a video store that' s interested in coming to town and their first — requirement is a drop off. Well that takes a drive thru if you think ab n it but it' s just going to, a Mailbox requires a drive thru. Federal Express. Drive thru. All these kinds of things require drive thrus. — Conrad : Paul , was your concern stacking distance on this or were there other concerns? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 17 Krauss : Mr . Chairman, there is quite obviously a traffic conflict if, every drive thru we' ve seen you get a reader board and then you get the pickup window. There' s different ways of massaging these things around but we don' t have a lot of guidance as to what' s being proposed there and we don' t believe that there' s any room for a mistake there. Any kind of traffic that piles up, piles up in the main drive aisle of the center. By way of a compromise I supposed we'd be willing to review a site plan at some time in the future that they might propose even if it' s an extremely minor type of pick up use . Consider allowing that specific use but we asked for some resolution of this in the last few meetings and there hasn' been any and we' re still quite concerned with it. Conrad: Tell me potentially on the west side, if they put a drive up window on the west side. On the northwest side rather than on the northeast side, is that a possibility? If the drive thru basically starte from off of Monterey versus coming in from 78th? Krauss : It could give you a longer stacking distance and help solve that. Conrad : It might be a possibility? I 'm not sure I like coming in off of 78th and going through a drive thru to your , going in. If there are cars exiting and there are cars going in, we' ve got the cars flip flopped on th wrong side so I 'm not sure that' s the right place for a drive thru there. I could see it coming from entering off of Monterey like a typical flow would be maybe. Brad Johnson : You have to have your drive thru has to be on your left side. Car window side. Conrad : That' s why you' ve got it there isn' t it? Brad Johnson: Yeah. We think we could move the windows, I 'm just saying . Conrad : How could you do that though Brad? How could you have, so you' re basically saying that is a one way traffic? Brad Johnson : Yeah. That ' s what it is. It ' s indicated to be one way. All we' re saying is we think we can come back with some plans for you. for that whole thing . We don' t happen to have the tenant currently. We have heard that we should remain within a reasonable stacking so it won' t be a Hardee ' s with a reader board and it won' t be somebody probably that would , it'd be more of a pick-up situation than somebody that we plan on stacking because you' re right, there' s not enough room. We' re just asking that you don' t put in a contract that we have with you that it's prohibited. That' all and that' s what it says here. We realize that we could have a stackin problem and we' ve come up with some designs but we don't know how the tenant is and until that happens , I think the agreement could have, we hay to come back for a plan review but . . . Conrad : Conceptually it' s a tough one to bite off Brad if you could solve that problem. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 18 Brad Johnson: If we can ' t solve it, then we won' t do it because it won' be good for the tenant either . If a tenant' s going to do this, he' s goi g to rent this building from us and invest $150 ,000.00 in his business at a minimum because that ' s just what it costs for those kinds of pick-up typo of businesses and he' s going to want to be successful and one things tha wouldn' t make him successful is if people couldn' t get in there because of stacking . It'd make them angry. There' s plenty of other sites where they could go in town possibly to have drive thrus if they wanted to. So tha' our opinion on that one . Moving right along , item 14. Relative to the 2 inch storm sewer along. Ellson : Weren ' t you going to do 9? Brad Johnson: I 'm not going to handle 9. Crib sheet . 72 inch storm see along the south property. Two problems we have in here. We' re not sure w want to pay for it but we' re not saying we won' t. We think it ' s needed ..n we'd like to have further discussions with that with the City staff and figure out how to pay for it if we need to. But we do not think that we should be required to have that installed before we start any constructi n on the site. There' s got to be some other way of doing that. Or does tha mean we've got to go in and put the storm sewer in before we break grouna. Dr . Bonnett for example' s ready to break ground tomorrow, or as soon as e file the plat and that would hold him up on the outlot side so all we' re saying is there' s got to be some other way of assuring you that that will end up there if we' re going to pay for it. If you' re going to pay for i , you don ' t have to worry about it but we think we should have further discussions on that. In other words, that was just thrown at us. We've always said we won ' t pay for it. The City staff has always said we woul pay for that and this is new that we have to have it installed before we pull a permit . Krauss : As to who' s going to pay for it, we ' re really not in the positi n to argue one way or the other . The engineering department and our input has led us to believe that it would be the developer ' s obligation. Howeve that' s ultimately up to the City Council to decide with the development contract, or potentially the HRA if that ' s involved . As to the time of installation for that pipe, it' s our understanding that without that pipe, that area is prone to become flooded . Whether it' s a construction site —r a building in place, it would flood out and that pipe is needed to avoid that. Hence it' s imperative and important that it be timed to coincide at least in advance of any kind of serious construction in that area. We can contact the engineer further and see if there' s some area of the site. T veterinary clinic is quite a ways from there and possibly that could stat first but there is a definite conflict between the primary building and th pond. — Brad Johnson : Our only rebuttal to all that is, according to the engineering staff there's sufficient ponding on the south side of the — tracks to handle all water that' s ever going to happen around here as lo 3 as it can drain that way and we feel that we could constructing the center and that at the same time. That' s all we' re asking . Right Todd? They _ don' t want to go out on a site where they get washed away either so we' r just saying , for that to be installed first , let ' s say we' re going to st .r Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Pagefq this in March or something like that . It may delay the start of the cente 2 to 3 months while we' re getting that put in there. That' s all . We'd just like to be able to pull the same permits the same day. Is that right? So I mean that' s all they plan on doing it. Batzli : Paul , is there any counter or rebuttal to that argument? What' s the problem with doing it all at the same time? Krauss : Again, we understood there to be a conflict in that if there ' s a rain back there without that pipe, the ponding area, the defacto ponding area that results , occurs where the building is going to be built. Brad Johnson: Okay. What you' re saying is we've got to provide it during that brief week or 2 or 3 that they' re building that culvert. We have to have an alternate access poing of the water from the storm water . Krauss : Some temporary diking possibly. That may be something that could be worked out. Clayton Johnson: The problem as I see it is putting it as a requirement o the PUD, really the land could be just as it is today. Dr. Bonnett could be constructing his . . .property without that sewer being in and what we' re objecting to is it being a requirement of the PUD. The economics of who' s going to pay for it is an issue that has to be resolved within the HRA and our company because it was a part of the condemnation proceeding on that land . What we' re objecting to is making it a requirement of the PUD. Brad Johnson: So we'd like to work that out and I think we can. That' s partly working out with the engineering department and everybody else . So we'd like to have you just say simply that we' re working that out or defer it to the City Council . Maybe between now and the City Council maybe we can get a solution to that. Item 22 and 23 deal with signage. Probably one of the most critical issues in marketing this whole site to a tenant will be it' s signage. Both it' s visbility and it' s availability. One of the reasons that people are now desiring to be in neighborhood malls like this rather than enclosed malls simply is name identification and that the feel that they can control their own future versus being inside. And I 've always said this but if you watch the advent of the mall at TH 4 and TH 5, slowly but surely they' re getting signs outside. Originally there were no signs. You go down and look at the Target store and all the signs down at the Prairie Village Mall , the big one, slowly but surely they' re getting signs outside and the reason simply is, the business fails. If a company such as Dominoes wants to advertise it' s name and spend a million or 2 million dollars a year , it wants it' s sign on the building it' s going to b on. That' s the key to it' s success . Therefore we have to be as sensitive to signage as possible. So we'd like to say this, that we would like to have, by the way I think the signage on this from a look point of view wil look just like Town Square, which everybody seems to like. It' s been very identified . That' s the look. We'd like to be able to put signs on the en caps. We have the ability of having 2 signs on every building and we'd like to have 3 signs for the tenants on the end caps . End caps . In other words, the ends. We have 2 ends. We have a north end and an east end so Super Value would face the tracks , face Market Square and face into the Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 20 — center . Whatever tenant that we have at the end of the north side would— have the ability to put one on 78th, one on Monterey which would encoura e them to make it look better because it would look like part of his store, and then also face the center . That would be our request relative to that Batzli : Wouldn' t that draw people in from Monterey from the wrong way? Brad Johnson: They'd just be able to see that it' s there. That's the — idea . The hardware store is going to have a sign in the back. All thos people along the back will have signs. One of the benefits of being on Monterey is that we' ll probably spend more time taking better care of th— back and making it look better because it' s going to be a street someday with other the retail traffic which will the center will do. One time we had planned on putting a road into the center , through the center of the— center but it turned out from a hazardous traffic point of view, it'd be dangerous because people would be coming in from where you don' t think they' re coming in from. Right between two buildings. So that is our request there. I don't know if the staff has any comment on that. Krauss : Signage is always a tough issue to grapple with in multiple tenan buildings. We understand the need to advertise and believe it' s a valid— purpose . We' ve worked some on the sign plan for this center . The first monument signs that we were asked to review here were the size of Naegele billboards . The current monument signage is quite attractive and reasonably sized. We' re looking at monument signage that does have some tenant boards on there. We requested that it not be changeable copy because that frankly looks tacky. The major tenants will have that additional signage out on the boulevard . As far as the building signage— goes, they' re going to have signs front and back. Their advertising in directions . Now Super Value wants the third direction . This is really a subjective comment. We thought that that was a bit much since who' s it — going to appeal to if it' s just facing the east? You' re going to see th Super Value logo as you come up from the south. It' s on the back of the building . From the front of the building , you see the Super Value logo an then you' ll see the shopping center monument sign that also says Super Value on it. We felt that was a bit excessive but again, that is a subjective judgment . Brad Johnson: I think if you look at most of the Burger King ' s or whoever ' s on a corner , or if you go down and look at the bank at TH 4 and TH 5, you' ll see that it' s signed on 3 sides because that ' s logical in t11a particular case because it was visible from TH 5 in two locations . We' r going to have two high traffic areas here. We' re going to have one , Mar..e Square is going to be heavily trafficed so that' s a good place for a sign. 78th is going to be heavily trafficed so we think facing 78th would be good place for a sign as well as the front or back and that' s what we' re requesting . I think if you go look around , you' ll see a lot of situations where on these kinds of corners they' ve allowed attractively the signs . — They don' t look that bad and the signs aren' t that big. Batzli : So are you saying that your screening of your landscaping isn' t._ going to be good enough to hide any of these buildings? Panning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 21 Brad Johnson: The screening of the landscaping was designed not to hide the signs. Batzli : So once you put the sign up there, it ' s going to be very visible intentionally? Brad Johnson: It has to be or we won ' t get a tenant. I mean this is the name of the game. Batzli : But on the ends is what I 'm talking about . Brad Johnson: The Super Value end it' s going to be a relatively small sign. It ' s a big wall so I mean that ' s a large building over there an don the other end, we still haven' t got the design. We don' t know who the tenant is . I heard Ladd say that he'd like to see a nicer looking end cap. I think we can accomplish that as part of dealing with this drive thru also. So we just don' t want that included in the development agreement and/or in the PUD agreement. Finally on the monument sign, we believe that the center should have 2 monument signs but we also have to deal with a tenant who will potentially or owner, who will have a 70,000 square foot corner . And according to your ordinances , if somebody is located on a corner of two streets, they' re allowed two monuments.] One on each street. We'd like to ask for at least one. We anticipate that that the person going on that site would like a monument on the site. It could be low profile. Would probably match what you have seen there . Not the high ones but probably how high would you say Bill? 15 feet. And the tenants that would approach this are the potential owners of that land have indicated they'd be interested in the site if there' s a monument. This is strictly marketing again . We have to deal with that and that ' s what they feel makes them successful so those are the issues that we'd like to have you address in your discussion. That' s our feeling at the present time and as I said, Bloomberg ' s later on will address both the monuments once again and access to those lots because that' s what they' re going to end up owning in this particular agreement. So Bill, do you want to address the rest of the issues? Todd Kristoferson: Thank you. My name is Todd Kristoferson and I 'm Amcon Corporation. The last few items+ on the list which have not been addressed are starting with number 9 . Parking lot lighting . Item 9 says that the parking lot lights shall be reduced to 25 feet in height and they shall match the design of the downtown lighting. What we would like todowith the parking lot lights is to match the lighting that has been done in the rest of the private developments in the downtown area. We would not like to be restricted to matching the decorative lights which the City has placed in their boulevards . The reasons for this are, we would like to have a lighting plan that is efficient both in the initial cost and also in energy useage and in order to do that on a lot of this size, we need to get fewer light standards. Get the lights up in the air 35 feet approximately and direct the light down at the parking lot. The lights which the City has used are lower and are more decorative in nature and direct light outward from the light fixture. So for with reason we would like to use the down showbox style lighting that the rest of the private developments have used . Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 22 — Emmings: I 've got a question there. It ' s my understanding that this change was from 30 to 25 and now you just mentioned 35. Am I wrong about that? J Olsen: We understood it to be 30 feet and we want them down to 25. Todd Kristoferson: We have not done a final lighting design of the site. — Super Value will do their own lighting design and will specify their own lighting fixtures and standards. We will work with them to make sure that what they want to do is consistent with what is approved under the PUD. — Batzli : What does 30 foot PML mean? Todd Kristoferson : Pole mounted light. Batzli : You haven' t done a final study yet? Todd Kristoferson: Super Value has not done theirs . Normally Super Value' s light poles are 40 feet and sometimes 45 feet. Batzli : So the plan that we have doesn ' t really reflect what we may or ma not do? Ellson: Well we can tell them what . — Conrad: What would be maximum. Ellson: What other buildings are you saying you want them to conform with: You said other ones that are on West 78th Street or downtown? Headla : Brian asked a question. I want to hear the answer to that. Batzli : Why do we have a 30 foot PML here if that' s not what' s going to happen? Isy this just conceptual? —' Todd Kristoferson: Based on our own preliminary design , that was our intent. Discussions we've had with Super Value, they would like to see — higher light poles for that parking lot. They' re not interested in having more light poles than are necessary. They would rather see fewer light poles and better lights and higher lights . The intent is to direct the — light downwards so as you ' re looking at the site, you' re not seeing light in your eyes . The light is shining downwards. In order to the get the light that we need in that parking lot with the boulevard lights, we would have to have them 30 or 40 feet apart which would be. . . — Batzli : I understand your reasoning. I understand what you' re saying. My frustration is growing as there are more and mote changes+ from what we' re — looking at than what you guys want to do tonight that the staff hasn' t had a chance to look at and I mean you ' re just hitting us with stuff left and right here. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 23 Todd Kristoferson: The other two issues which were on here which have not been addressed by item are 24 and 25. Item 24 was addressed by Bill when he explained the building architecture and I don' t think I want to get into that. If you'd like to discuss that item, I guess I 'd like to have Bill present that . He' s already gone through that . On item 25, Brad addressed the screening issue and the problem that 25 presents is that it puts the developer in a position where we really don' t know if we have an answer whether we've satisfied this until the building is up and you can drive by TH 5 and You can see what You see . We know that because TH 5 when it crosses the bridge is higher than the building, that we will not be able to screen the building from all points of TH 5 with vegetation. It cannot be done. Conrad : Talk to me about your comment on 25 again. I 'm real lost on what you' re saying versus what staff is saying. Try to condense it. Todd Kristoferson: Okay. Staff has asked for sight line sections that show the building from TH 5. At certain points of TH 5, and that is as you get further west and go up the bridge, we know that we cannot screen the building from there. You are going to see the top of the building. The mechanical units will be screened and we' ll have the architectural features on the back that dress up the building but we cannot screen the building from TH 5. Batzli : Paul , what are you looking for as far as those sight lines? Krauss : Well, it' s been a big question for us . We think that that TH 5 exposure is real important . We acknowledge it ' s the back of the building and we acknowledge that the intent here is not to screen the entire back of the building . The intent is to screen those more, if you will , obnoxious aspects of the back of the building and then as far as the roof line, the peaks above there and the signage that they want to hang back there, we' re more than happy for that to be visible. We just want to make sure that you can ' t see the trash compactors and the loading docks and the trash storage bins and the trucks that are parked back there. The only way we can be assured of that is for a perspective. This is why we've asked for it in the few previous meetings . Batzli : So really you' re not even as concerned with solely the roof so much as you' re looking for what does the sight line which would include the berm, include some of the screenings and things like that from the ground perspective but from the ground up? Krauss : Yes . Olsen : We have not yet really seen what the rear of the building is going to look like. Even from the west side either and we' re uncomfortable without seeing that . Conrad : How do you do that based on the different elevations from TH 5? Do you take the worse possible scenario? The highest elevation? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 24 Krauss : What you do as you illustrated, you get the topographic layout of — TH 5 and then you put yourself in the perspective of a car driving by looking at this site and they scale out the distance. Conrad: The highest elevation off of TH 5? Krauss : Right . Ellson: And you said that you'd be happy if it didn' t show the storage area and loading docks and things like that but his contention is that the majority of the roof would not be hidden. That was part of your thing — here? Krauss : Yes . The intent was not to hide the roof. The intent was not to _ hide the sign ban that they' re going to have on the back. Ellson : That' s what it says here. The sections will verify that the majority of the roof will be hidden and that's what I think he's concerned — about is that, if you want my roof to be hidden. . . Krauss: That' s a probably misleading. That' s not the intent . — Olsen : Just the roof equipment . Krauss : The earlier discussion we had about the rear of the roof is to make that area more attractive because it is going to be visible. Jim Winkles : Mr . Chairman. My name is Jim Winkles . We don' t disagree at — all with the intent. It's the subjective nature of the wording. We fully agree that the loading areas , those unsightly areas will be screened . The rooftop equipment will be screened. We have no problem with that. It ' s — just simply that wording . How it was phrased that concerns us . We have no disagreement otherwise with the intent from what we' re hearing tonight at all . I think much, if I could just go back and just cover , maybe summarize a few things. The items that we' ve talked about up here, they' re nothing — new that ' s come up in the sense of , the only thing that I can truly say that is different which reallyis a changing function of some of the dynamics of the whole projectisthe light pole size . We had shown 30. — Staff had wanted 25 but the issue of the height is not new at all . We've been talking to staff about that for months . The change to 35 is simply reflects what Super Value wants which is a tenant. It' s a changing. It' s — a dynamic situation. You try to work with everything but the issue of height at all is not new. Nor are any of the other 25 issues on this list here. They' re all items that we ' ve talked about and talked about . We simply have some concerns about some of the things and what we 've talked tc staff about . We ' re trying to work those things through as I think you can see and appreciate. But I don ' t want to leave the impression here that because we may have some concerns or that we' re trying to let you know — about those concerns, that we' re necessarily bringing up new things tonight because we' re not . Everything has been I think well documented by Jo Ann that we' ve had a number of meetings and have been talking about aJnumber of_ different issues and tried to cooperate with all these different things. It ' s just that sometimes we can only do what we can do and what the — Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 25 marketplace will let us do out there. Conrad : Good . Thanks . Any other comments? John Rice: My name is John Rice. I 'm the Attorney for Bloomberg Companies. I want to address just a couple of the issues here. First is the recommendation number 3 on page 9 regarding the access to Outlot A. By way of prefacing what the position of Bl000mberg Companies is on this particular issue. Bloomberg Companies is going to be a partner in the development of the shopping center but Bloomberg Companies will retain the ownership of Outlot A so we have a somewhat different interest in the developing partnership for the center itself as far as Outlot A is concerned. It' s to those concerns that I want to speak. We think that it is very important that both from 78th Street and from Market Blvd. there be access to Outlot A. At this time we do not know what will be the ultimate use of Outlot A. We do not know whether it will be a one user development in that Outlot A or whether there might be a multiple use. Two separate business establishments and what the particular type of business establishment it would be. Whether it would be a restaurant. Whether it would be whatever else would go in there. And to establish now at this time that in fact there shall be no access from either 78th or to Market Blvd . , would have a severe impact on, first on the value of that property. Number 2, it would severely impact the kind of development that would be able to be put in there and making it accessible and acceptable to a prospective owner or tenant of a building or a business that' s put in there. And that applies to both 78th Street and to Market Blvd . . There ' s always traffic problems and there' s always the problem when you get close to an intersection . They' re not problems that can ' t be solved and with the blending of a right turn lane, I 'm not a traffic expert so I 'm not going to tell you how to do it but at the same time while we may not have a design here for you to say that this will work with the traffic studies to back it up, neither I think have we seen that there are traffic studies that conclusively show that it can' t be done. The staff has made known their opinions and recommendations but we do disagree with it . Both from the standpoint of practicality and secondly from the economic use of the property that it will ultimately be put to. As far as on West 78th Street, the right-in and right-out is satisfactory but we think that on Market Blvd. there is a lot of space there along Market Blvd. and on that there should be an access both in and out in both directions . Just one of the other problems that it comes to when you provide that there shall only be this access is I would refer you to paragraph 26 which requires cross] easements over the parking lot, presumably and the shopping center property for the benefit of Lot 2 and for the benefit of Outlot A. Well now you see you' re getting into questions of encumbrances on title. That you' re going to have questions about whether or not tenants and the owner of the shopping center and the mortagee of the shopping center is going to accept those kinds of easements and the same problem for any ultimate occupant of Outlot A and the mortagee on that. Whether or not those kinds of encumbrances on the access to the property, it ' s a very important factor . Not just from the economics but from the standpoint of title and from the standpoint of it ' s acceptance by mortagees that they can have, be assured of access to the property and that should not be encumbered and set in — stone now but rather that access be specifically provided for . As far as Planning Commission Meeting • September 20, 1989 - Page 26 the signing , Brad ' s addressed those questions . That ' s clearly, that site — Outlot A with one or two businesses on there. Each of those businesses is not going to be dependent upon Market Square. They are going to want to be at least separately identified and to make the kind of investment that would be required . They will require signage and pylons and that restriction we also feel should not be written into the PUD at this time but rather that each business that would be located on Outlot A would have the right to a separate appropriately provided for within the Code pylon — sign. Thank you. Conrad : Other comments? Anybody else? — Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: Well we all have our opinions on probably 26 or 27 points here. Emmings: Well we don' t have to talk about the ones they agree on. Conrad: Well, we may but that would be an easy way to rule out. I don' t — know if we could give an overview, each of us , of our opinions . Batzli : Then go back through it point by point? Conrad : Then go back to it point by point . Batzli : Let ' s do that. Conrad : The point by point basically forces us into the specifics. It doesn' t get into architecture. It doesn' t get into some other things so ._ that ' s why I wanted to get into an overview first . See if anybody has other issues to talk about other than the 26 specifics in the+ staff report . So Tim, I think I ' ll start down at your end . Without getting into the specifics of the 26 issues, are there other impressions that you'd like to :- other o ,other issues that you'd like to discuss? Erhart: In general? — Conrad : In general that has not been brought up in the staff recommendations . Erhart : That has not been brought up. Okay, well the one issue you brought up isn' t in the staff and I think that is the retail store on the north end . I agree 100% with you Ladd that somehow that has to be a 3 — sided, has to have 3 front sides in that we could not allow what they would consider the northwest portion of that to be a rear facing West 78th Street. Now I don't know how we do it . Whether we have to put something — in that we have to review the site plan at the time that ' s developed just hoping that they have a tenant by the time they build the building but somehow I think we really have to force that one. I think it ' s that _ important. The other thing that' s not considered in the items . What is the landscaping of that pond just south of the railroad track? What ' s the Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 27 intent there of the City? Is that City property? Is that going to be trees on there? Evergreen trees? Deciduous or what? Olsen : It ' s going to have a fountain. Erhart: The pond itself but I 'm thinking of the shoreline. It ' s not been settled yet or? Krauss : We' re not aware. We' ll dig that information out for you. Erhart: Yeah. I mean there' s some potential for additional screening from TH 5. It ' s simply on what you do with that north shoreline on that pond isn' t it or is that lower? Krauss : It ' s lower and it' s being excavated out further so yeah, I wouldn' t think that it offers that much. It probably could use something to enhance it by itself but it' s not going to over screen it . Erhart: Okay. The other thing not issued in the thing is how does one walk from the hotel? If someone wants to get, they' re in the hotel and they want to go over to the grocery store, how do they get there? Are there sidewalks provided? Olsen: There will be sidewalks also along here. Erhart : Along the east side right now? Olsen: Well they will be on both sides . Erhart : Outlot A isn' t going to have anything until it ' s developed is that right? Olsen : No . Erhart : You' re requiring a sidewalk at this time all along the west side of Market Blvd .? Okay. That answers that question. Conrad : As long as you brought that up Tim. Jo Ann , could you go through the pedestrian traffic flow on this site because I don' t see how you get to the building from certain sidewalks . Olsen : There will be sidewalks on West 78th Street and Market Blvd. . There will be a sidewalk through here. You can walk all along here. There' s awnings . Conrad : And how do you get , right where your pointer was , how do you get from that store out to the West 78th? And is there a sidwalk there? Olsen : No . Conrad : So you take the street? Okay. Take me down to the Super Value store and the sidewalk ends at the Super Value. Right there' s the sidewalk there. How do we get in from that sidewalk into the Super Value store . Is Planning Commission Meeting • September 20, 1989 - Page 28 — there a sidewalk getting in? — Olsen : No . There are no internal sidewalks . Batzli : I 'm sorry. I missed something I think. Did you say that there is a sidewalk going down Market Blvd. the entire length there? Olsen: Right. — Batzli : Including the outlot? Olsen: Right. . .and there is one on the east side also. Headla : You say there is? Olsen : Yes . That ' s in the plan but they' re not there right now. Erhart: Where does it show that that sidewalk goes along the whole west — side of Market Blvd.? Is that in one of the conditions? Olsen: It' s our understanding that it. . . — Erhart : Maybe it ought to be added as a condition. I 'm not sure that it was clear . It was shown on one of the drawings . Emmings : It ' s on the site plan . Conrad: Not that I can see . — Ellson : I see a sidewalk here. . .but it doesn' t up here. Erhart: Well there' s one for the Planning Commission. Olsen : That' s something we can make clear . Erhart: If you could clarify that as a condition. Brian, were you, was that Ladd or Brian suggesting that there should be a sidewalk going north out of that last retail center north up to West 78th Street also? — Batzli : Ladd said that . Conrad: I think it makes sense. Erhart : Yeah . It seems to. Batzli : It also makes sense from Super Value going east . Conrd : Anything else in general Tim? Batzli : I think that ' s all I had in general? Emmings: The only thing I have I guess that would be general comments that aren ' t specific ones ate number one, I 'm not sure that all of the -- Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 29 discussion wound up showing up as conditions . I think I 've spotted at least 1 or 2 that didn' t make it in and that worries me, so I think that should be checked before it gets to the City Council . Ellson: Do you have an example? Emmings : Yeah . I didn' t find , that' s a specific and we can get into that . The one that comes to mind right away is the, under Outlot A it said the construction of buildings on Outlot A will be compatible with shopping center building and veterinary clinic and I didn' t see that in the conditions. Krauss : It should be. Emmings: And I think we should change the wording on that too but that' s specific. My other general comment is that a lot of the comments I heard, this whole parcel is being treated as a PUD, which is appropriate but it seems that whenever that doesn' t fit the purposes of the owners of Outlot _ A, they all of a sudden want to treat it as a separate parcel and I 'm havingya real hard time with that. It' s either in or it' s out. It isn' t both so I think it makes it hard to talk about but from my part , I look at it as part of the whole piece and I 'm going to continue to look at it that way but I don' t think that ' s a big problem because I think we can put all of these burdens such as the monument. Saying that they can' t have an additional sign out there or they can' t have access . If it' s going to create a burden for someone, I think it' s appropriate that it creates a burden for them and if they cam come back later and show us good reasons why we should change it, we can always change it. But other than that, I guess my other comments have to do with. Oh another one I noticed that that 12. foot width you want it increased? Olsen : I just saw that . Emmings: That isn' t in there as a recommendation either or as a condition and I don' t know what you want it to be. You said you wanted it wider but you didn' t say what? Olsen: And that ' s something that we' re still working on. I hadn ' t gotten confirmation. Emmings : Again , that' s specific . I don' t have anything else . Ellson: The first thing I thought when I saw this whole plan reminds me of the Eden Prairie Rainbow center lot or what have you with the anchor of that. I 'm a little uncomfortable with the, I mean there' s so much of this and I 'm trying to picture it . Some of these step downs . It' s not going to make you feel like it' s one long runway or that type of thing and I 'm not sure I 'm real comfortable that that' s being accomplished . The canvas awnings I agree look nice but I ' ve got a concern that who upkeeps something like that as it goes on? Is it individual shop owners? Is it the developer who owns that whole strip? I know that those sort of things look pretty tacky as they get worn out from the sun and things like that also and maybe there' s benefit to some of these plastics and metals that they Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 30 use you know for awnings because of how nice they look for years and years .— I share the same concern with that corner of the two streets. If I felt that it was really being bermed and totally done up with landscape, I guess it wouldn' t bother me to leave it like this but if it' s going to be — something that' s pretty visible and they obviously want a sign on all threE sides there, that means they' re going to try to make it visible, then I like the idea that the back looks almost like a front or better than the typical backs of the other buildings. The only other thing that I had — which has probably nothing to do with this permit is I was wondering if, it sounded like they were saying that two-thirds of it is already leased ahead of time and obviously the people who are listed in here must be those — lessees. And the first thought that I had was here we' ve got a hardware store right around the corner and now we' re bringing in a new hardware store. I 'm wondering is it the same hardware store that' s just moving? — Okay. Because I 'd hate to think that we ' re running somebody out of town you know that' s been there a while. I guess I thought the same with the Lawn and Sport. I didn' t know if it was the same person and stuff like that so that makes me feel a little better . Thanks . That' s it . — Batzli : I had some questions that didn' t relate to the additions so I guess I ' ll ask them now and tell me if I 'm getting too specific. First of all , just from a planning perspective Paul , will there ever be a frontage road along TH 5? Krauss : Behind where this shopping center is? -' Batzli : Yes . Krauss : No . Batzli : So if there is a frontage road along TH 5, there won ' t be on this stretch where downtown Chanhassen sits? Okay. I 'm also I guess concerned about the line of sight from Monterey and West 78th Street and that building and I kind of convinced myself that it wasn' t a big deal until they said the landscaping would purposefully be done so that it made this — building very visible and the signs attached thereto so it does concern me now. I almost had myself convinced that it wasn ' t going to be that big of a deal but I think it is important. The design of that upper corner: — there. The northwest corner . I was going to ask just in case Dave forgot , whether this building would require any additional fire fighting equipment . You can answer that. One of the questions though was who actually maintains the outlot until it' s developed? I noted on one of the drawings somewhere it said that they' re just going to plant it in grass seed . This is going to be a fairly nice corner and the question is, who normally has the burden of maintaining that to make it look somewhat nice and obviously — they' re going to come up here and tell us well , this is a real nice shopping center . We' re going to want it to look nice but how does the City actually control that or don' t they? — Krauss : Our mechanism is to always go after the owner of the property, whoever that happens to be. Batzli : Well the ordinance says it can ' t get over 2 feet high. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 31 Krauss : Also , all the parties are signing a PUD agreement that would require the maintenance of the property in the condition to which you approve it so whoever is the parties that sign that agreement would have the liability for maintaining the property. Batzli : This was probably HRA or something but it seemed that there was an easement for a road going into the center of the project from the west . There was some sort of line on one of our plans that there was a road coming in from the west that lines up with the road about halfway up. Does the City currently have an easement or something platted there that there' s actually a road going in there that ' s being vacated? Olsen: The road right-of-way. . . Batzli : There is a road right-of-way there now? Brad Johnson: Sanitary sewer . Olsen: We have an easement . Batzli : Pica Drive or something? Olsen: We' ve got a 60 foot easement right here in the middle of the site. Batzli : What' s happening to that in this whole process? Olsen : Well we' re going to vacate , we' re going to maintain the easements over what is going to remain there for sewer and water . The rest will be vacated if it' s not necessary for utility easements . Batzli : Then this excess right-of-way to be dedicated to the project on the northern half. Is that actually a part of, you really don' t want to give up that entire excess right-of-way? Is that what you' re talking about when you' re talking about constructing+ the 12 foot? f Olsen: Right. We' re not going to give up as much as we' re showing . Batzli : But that' s currently being counted on their plan as their property and for purposes of impervious surface and everything else. And one last general question. Fred had a memo in here talking about a lot of different concerns . Are all of his concerns addressed in your conditions or at least if not in your conditions , at least satisfied in your own mind? Fred Hoisington: Brian, yes . The second memo that I have in there is the one that ' s the more current . The first one was when we were going through this in a very general fashion. Some of those are worded differently but all of those issues have been addressed and I 'm satisfied that all those have been met satisfactorily. Batzli : Okay. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 32 — Headla : I don ' t like to get into detail . I think we've got too much — detail tonight but I 've got a real detailed question for Brad . When I bring my two sick horses over to that vet , where do I park the trailer? Brad Johnson: Ask the vet. Dr . Bonnett : You' re not getting a horse in there . It ' s small animals . Headla: I kind of assumed that but I just wanted to bring that point out . I like the project . The way it' s going . I think it' s got a lot of promise. You' ve got a lot of problems with the way the whole thing is — being handled . Both on your side and the staff ' s side. I do not like to hear the excuse that it' s a large project, therefore that justifies a lot of loose ends. That' s a bunch of baloney. That is the worse thinking you _ could ou — could ever do. You people are crowded right now with all your time. Now you' ve got a major project coming in. Now you want more loose ends that you' re going to try to control . Something ' s going to suffer or else you' re going to add more money to the tax roll . You' ve got to be able to manage — it. The only way you' re going to manage it is to have a. . .plan. You've got a. . . 26 points and a lot of stuff slipped through here . I think you've got to go back. Take a look at it again and see how you really want+ to — manage it . I think Jim had , he talked about signing and he talked about a plan. How you could do it. I think that' s the way we should approach this thing . Give us a plan . How you would approach the signage. He' s going to gear towards this but if you look at it, you can agree on the policy that they want to go, you really don' t care about a lot of that detail . You' ve got to nail down what' s his intent. Traffic flow' s another one. I think You can mail them down on traffic flow. I don' t care if there' s a diamond - - in iamond — in the tile there now. I 'd rather see what is their intent. What are the; really going to do. How can you measure them. You don' t want to have someone go over there 5 days a week, 40 hours a week. You want to have _ somebody go over and monitor once in a while to see what they' re doing . You want to adminstrate that thing and that' s all . Then I didn' t like it where you people laid those three surprises on the staff . I think when you come in here, they' ve got to know exactly what you' re going to say. Now — you' ve got them thinking , well should it be this or that. Did you see all three of these sketches beforehand? No. That' s another thing . I think you people have got to be aware of what ' s coming in and I think you have — every right to insist on that. They tell you what they' re goingtopresent and they don ' t cover anything else.+ That ' s all I have. Conrad: I think my comments have come out before. A quick one. On canvaE awnings . When they do rip. The canvas is softening up the front of the building. What kind of control do we have, and if we don' t have it, I think it ' s to the tenant' s benefit to keep it there but do we have control — over the architecture that has been presented Paul? Let' s say it deteriorates to a degree . What control do we have later on? Let ' s say in 5 years when the canvas may be is not holding on. — Krauss : That ' s a little bit of a tough question. Basically the building that you approve is the one that' s supposed to be built and the one that' s — supposed to be maintained and if they want to deviate from that , then they' re going to have to get some authorization to do that. Likewise, if Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 33 the building ' s not maintained in a manner that ' s consistent with the appearance that was approved, we theoretically have the right to go back to them and require that it be brought up to standard . That ' s not an easy process but it is available. Conrad : Are you comfortable with canvas awnings? Krauss: I 'm not an architect. The newer awnings that I 've seen have weathered fairly well . Conrad : Fred , you' re comfortable with canvas as a material out there that' s going to last and survive? Fred Hoisington : I 'm very comfortable with canvas . I have no difficulty with it but I think you have a legitimate concern as far as what happens or what if because I think there are some possibilities for damage as there would be to anything and perhaps there is a need to have some sort of requirement or+control that assures you will be. . .but canvas is fine . I have no difficult with that at all . Conrad : Okay, walk through us from Monterey. We have cut off all circulation, pedestrians from Monterey and I need some reaction to that. In other words, the designers , the architects , the builders , developers , they really don' t want anybody coming in from this new, the area to the west . We have no walk throughs . You' ve got to walk around so we' re saying pedestrian traffic doesn' t count. Basically saying we' re really not on�a street over there folks . The street shouldn' t be there. That should be an alley. I need some feedback. I don' t want to put walkways through something that ' s not going to be used . I have no interest in forcing the developer ' s to do something that' s absolutely never going to be taken advantage of . Yet I need some reaction fromstaffto tell me or Fred , yourself or anybody with some insight. Given the fact that that may develop into retail commercial over there, are we locking , have we done the wrong, are we missing the boat by not having a walk through? I don' t know. Krauss : In the times that I ' ve sat in on these meetings, that was not an active consideration on our part and possibly it could have entered into that but as we think about it , what occurs to the west is likely to be oriented to the north. That street is a fairly minor street and will probably always remain that . This is hypothetical situations but it' s likely that what goes in there would be oriented to the north which would have a sidewalk ultimately that extends back around into the shopping center . Conrad : A quick comment however . There' s parking back there . I assume that' s going to be employee parking. Sometimes parking can, and I guess the other comment would be, I assume that traffic stalls are enough to service the area. Yet on the other hand, sometimes that back side can add to parking for shoppers or even across the street could add to parking so we' ve basically saying this is it . Maxed out as to what we've got there. I would be very concerned with , if we were close to the , if we didn' t think we had enough stalls and obviously we' re meeting code so we do, but even in the future if we were thinking that this center ' s going to be so powerful , Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 34 — so well used that we' re short or deficient on parking , I guess I 'd have to — be concerned with or I 'd be real interested in access to the west. Krauss : There ' s a lot of good valid comments in what you just mentioned . — The idea of reserving those rear stalls for employee parking is something that we could do by stipulation, i .e. that they put in the lease agreement that that is where their employees will park freeing up everything in the front for customers . I ' ve worked on a number of shopping centers , some of — which have had tunnels or hallways forced into them and the experience wasn ' t really that good . They tend to be rather minimal affairs . No matter you do to try to make it appealing, they' re long , rather dark tubes — that aren ' t very appealing and are downright frightening to use after hours. As a tool to force the use of parking to the rear of the building , I don' t believe they've been very effective. They do have the added — complication that they lose leaseable square footage of course to do that but from a design standpoint , I don' t think they work very well . Conrad: I probably agree with you. I drift back to the only concern that — I end up with is we really have closed down any kind of pedestrian traffic coming from anywhere in the Monterey side so it' s really a dead end. That whole street is dead end and maybe not well designed. Definitely not well — designed. But the street' s there. The building backs up. That' s the way it is . The design on the northerly building , I think that' s my biggest , well real briefly. Sidewalks have+ to connect to the sidewalk in the shopping center so from West 78th and from out on Market , there' s got to IDE a connecting sidewalk into the inner loop. Flat out. That has to be. ThE other thing that has been brought up before is just how we look on the north side. I think that it ' s got to be a three sided, if they want three — signs , I think we need to have a three sided building out there. I think that just makes sense and I don' t think that' s a hardship. I think that' s taking advantage of an opportunity on 78th. I think it' s just in — everybody' s best interest to make that a three sided building and I think that' s important . Those are my general comments . Now let ' s get back into the specifics if we can and try to finish this off before the evening' s over . I ' ll just go through them one at a time and I ' ll assume, just — because the applicant didn ' t have a problem with a point doesn' t mean we don' t but I ' ll go through them. Anybody concerned with 1? Point number 2. Tim, we' ll start with you again. Any brief, and hopefully we can keep — these brief because City Council ' s going to go through the same thing as WE are so I think we' ve surfaced some issues and some thoughts and thoughts have been surfaced by the applicant so I don' t know how much we want to beat this to death. Erhart : I agree with Steve. It seems like the applicant is trying to maintain every inch of flexibility he can get on this thing and� I think in — almost, not in the spirit of the cooperation of that I think we need . Unless I measure wrong, I don' t think vacating the portion of 78th Street that staff requests is going to have any affect on coverage or setbacks . — Now maybe I measured it wrong and so I don' t think it' s an unreasonable request to have that approach to who owns West 78th Street . Conrad: Is there any disagreement with Tim' s opinion on that? Anything? Okay, Dave I 'm going to flip down to your end on point number 3 . Outlot A — Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 35 will only be accessed internally. What' s your comment on point 3? Headla: I want to see 3 and 26 going into negotiations between the two parties. I don' t think they' re that far apart. The words that are on the paper are far apart but as I hear both sides, I think they can sit down and negotiate that out without a hard spot. Conrad: Brian, speak to me on that one. Do you agree? Do you want to make it a negotiable item? Batzli : I think that the City staff is saying that they don' t believe it can be done. The developer is putting himself into this corner by choosing this particular layout and corner of the lot to be an outlot and as part of the PUD plan, I kind of tend to agree with Steve a little bit in that it' s almost like they' re reserving this prime spot but they don' t want to be backed into a corner and yet they' re the ones that reserved that particular site . I don' t know, if they would have an exit , it seems to me that it would have to be on Market because just by looking at it it seems there' s no waythey can put an entrance onto West+ 78th right next to the corner there with+ an acceleration lane behind them as they' re turning right. So it seems to me that yeah, it should be negotiable with the staff but I don' t see how far they' re really going to get with it. Emmings : My point is , that corner has the two major accesses to the whole property oneachside of it. I can' t see they' ll have any problems servicing it from those major intersections and I don' t see how it ' s going to work. And they say, well we don' t know what' s going to go in there and I guess they have to maintain flexibility and I see it just the other way around. Everything is negotiable and for now I think we should leave it the way it island if later on they can come in and convince everybody that it should be changed, it can be changed. Conrad : Just practically speaking , they' re telling you something that ' s really true. If they had an access and that property is going to be more marketable . I think they' re not lying about that. If they had an access , and again, it depends on who they put in there but more than likely they' re going to have an easier time selling it if they can show closer access . Direct access . Emmings : What kind of distance do you have from the corner to the entrance on let' s say the West 78th Street side? That side. Olsen : The corner from West 78th Street? Emmings: Yeah. From West 78th and Market down to the entrance into the shopping center . Bill Brisley: 320. Emmings : How close to a corner can you have an entrance. Olsen: We like to keep it at 300 feet . Planning Commission Meeting • September 20, 1989 - Page 36 — Emmings: Okay. So where in the hell are they going to put it? I think — for now, see things are up in the air because they don' t know what' s going to go in there. They know as a general matter that anybody' s going to want an entrance but I think we should leave it this way for now and just leave — the burden on them to come back and prove it otherwise . Conrad: What do you think Tim? Erhart : I think it sure is more marketable. It' s also more marketable if they didn' t have to pay taxes either so. I can think of three other shopping centers like that in the west metro area and none of them have — access on that, direct access from the street on that corner . One' s a gas station I 'm thinking of . One' s a restaurant and one' s a Berger Brothers in Bloomington and they all access from the internal so I prefer to leave it — as staff has requested and let them come back later if they have a specific development that, they can come back and show traffic studies that they car have direct access , we can look at it at that time. Everything ' s negotiable. — Conrad : Okay. Batzli : You don' t really have a consensus there. You' re the deciding consensus I think. Conrad : No, no , no . Dave says he thinks there' s some negotiation. I — think the test of you are pretty close together on leaving it the way it is. I personally believe that , I 'd like to have, I would prefer to have an internal access to that site. I could be swayed to, if somebody showed me — a site plan that just made a whole lot of sense , I could be swayed . Emmings: We all could . — Erhart : We all could be but do that at the time. Conrad: Point number 4 . Any comment on the 8 foot wide bituminous? — Emmings : Now is that what we' ve been calling the sidewalk? Conrad : Yeah. That' s the northerly. Olsen : No , that ' s on West 78th Street . Headla: I didn' t hear you . Olsen : That ' s the one on West 78th Street but there ' s going . . . — Emmings: This says 8 foot wide bituminous path along West 78th Street. Is that what we' ve been calling the sidewalk up there? I just want to be — sure. I assumed that but I didn' t know. Olsen : It needs to be bituminous to be consistent with the rest of the West 78th Street . — — Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 37 Emmings: What about the one that goes down Market? — Olsen: That one is just going to be a concrete sidewalk but this might be a good condition to stick. Emmings : But I wonder . We want this to be bituminous so it' s consistent then we' re making this one concrete? — Olsen : Well this one is an 8 foot wide. This one is going to be combining with the bike path and will be going out to West 78th Street and Powers Blvd . . It' s all part of that downtown redevelopment plan. They already kind of had it. + Emmings : So that' s already kind of on there. Olsen: Decided. I can confirm what's what but. . . Emmings : Well 4 would probably be a good place to put in a sidewalk along _ Market and sidewalks coming in from West 78th into the center and from Market into the grocery store . Headla : Have we used easements other places or is this the first time? Olsen: For sidewalks, yes we've used easements . We almost always use easements. Headla : It ' s almost always an easement huh? Olsen: Yes. A trail easement . Conrad : Any comments on 5 and 6? — Batzli : Can we back up to 4 one second? Conrad : Back to 4. Batzli : The financial sureties and construction plans . Is that for all the public improvements? Olsen : That was just in reference to the sidewalks . Batzli : That doesn' t include the storm sewer they' re putting in or anything? Olsen : Well there will be a development contract as part of the whole thing but I just pointed out in that one condition to show that . . . Batzli : Can ' t we just make that last sentence a separate one for all improvements , public improvements that they' re going to do to the project? Olsen : Yes . Batzli : I 'm done. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 38 Conrad : 5 and 6? Anything? Headla : On 6, why didn' t you also put in about the grocery store? You had_ the one condition in 1 year about the truck exit from going the wrong way. Olsen : Well now it' s a two way street back there. Headla: Pardon? Olsen : It' s a two way street back there now so that one concern has been — addressed . Headla : I 'm looking on your memo dated August 31st , item 10. The grocery store loading docks are designed so that the semi trailers will exit going the wrong way on a one way street. Olsen: Right. It' s now a two way street. — Krauss : The plan was changed . Headla: It was changed? Oh, that' s my point. Conrad : Point number 7? Batzli : I have a proposal . Get rid of the second sentence and say, any drive thru at any location on the site shall require proper review+and approval including city staff approval . In other words, we' re saying that — it' s not an absolute no but if they put one in, it' s got to go through the proper approval cycle process . Krauss : Would that mean a site plan approval in front of Planning Commission and Council? Conrad : Yeah. — Erhart : And I agree. The best thing to do is just take it off this plan so it doesn' t imply that it' s approved. — Conrad : I think that ' s a good way to handle that. Point 8. Any comments on 8? 9? The 25 foot parking lot lights. Tim, start at your end . — Erhart : On this one I ' ll agree with the developer . I just don' t really care. I think there' s something to say when you' re trying to develop. We have a street downtown that the lights , they' re designed for a specific aesthetic appeal . They certainly are inefficient and when you' re trying tc do a parking lot like this , I guess without a specific architectural design that we apply to all parking lots downtown, which I don' t think we have, I — don ' t know why we would pick this one out and say that you have to match the existing street lights. And obviously the higher , the more efficient it is so I guess I don' t have a problem with whatever they come up with . Conrad : Any reaction to Tim' s comments? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 39 Emmings: Yes . I feel like we' re being real arbitrary here and I 'd like to know what the reason is , what are we supposed to be taking into account when we try and decide whether it should be 25, 30 or 35? I just don' t know. How am I supposed to think about that? Why does the City want 25? Erhart: Let me at the same time ask the question I had . Is there a plan for other parking lots downtown that they have specific lighting requirements that they have to meet? Olsen : Right . We are pursuing having the same sort of lighting for the Colonial Square parking lot where Kenny's is. They' re pursuing to have that same sort of lighting installed there. Also with Retail West we've been trying to work where even the City would pay the difference in cost to replace the parking lights that are there with that. So it is , we are trying to pursue that , make it more consistent. It' s not we' re just pointing out this area. We do understand it ' s an increased cost and I think that Paul would agree that we would be happy with something that would be similar that would also suit their needs and we can leave it open that they will provide us with a design and we could bring that back for your approval . It' s really hard to say. Erhart: I guess what I 'm saying is, if there' s a plan, an overall plan for parking lot lighting in the whole city, then that' s fine. Then we' ll work with these just like we'd work with everyone else but if we' re just picking out these, then I don' t think it' s fair to do that. Fred Hoisington: Tim, part of the problem is there is sort of a concept that we had always envisioned for these parking lots and we had hoped they would be consistent in the most part with the lighting for downtown. Those lights are expensive. They are low level . They have to be closer together but this shopping center doesn ' t necessarily lend itself to that. However , I think we might be able to achieve a little bit of both here. The higher efficiency lighting is what they' re looking for . What Super Value wants . Higher security lighting as well . Perhaps there's some way we can address a little bit of low level and then still get maximize the efficiency at that modest cost but be consistent with downtown. The only way we can do that is to work with them and come back to you with something . I don ' t think we can approve anything here tonight . Clayton Johnson : There ' s some confusion as to what downtown lighting is . The+ street lights we take exception to. The lighting that' s currently used in the Dinner Theater parking lot and Retail West is acceptable and was acceptable up until Super Value came up with some new criteria . Fred Hoisington : We can ' t quite figure out why but Clayton is right. We've had a concept but we haven' t always been consistent in applying it. Emmings: How high are those lights? You don ' t know. Jim Winkles: The lights in Retail West , or Town Square and the Dinner Theater are at least 30 feet high if not 35 feet high. Now I guess we don' t have any problem with that kind of lights and maybe to compromise Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 1989 - Page 40 with something that there is I think a pattern of lights on the street and — there's also a pattern of lights off the street being developed right downtown. Off the street we have a higher light with a different kind of a shape which is consistent with both the Dinner Theater and Town Square. — That' s the type that we want within the parking lot and maybe the compromise is that we look at something on the street and on Market Blvd . coming down to be consistent with the street policy that seems to be the lower level and the different type fixtures . We don' t have a problem with — that. What we do have a problem with is the inefficiency of these low lights in a parking lot where we want it well lit and efficiently lit for the interior of the space which is again, along 78th we have the street — lights and then you get into the parking lots . The Dinner Theater parking lot and Town Square and you' ve got the other over story type of lights there. Emmings : I guess my reaction is that what they' re proposing sounds reasonable. What they' re proposing sounds reasonable. If the parking lot lighting is consistent with what we have in the Dinner Theater and other — off street areas in the downtown, I wouldn' t have a problem with that. It sounds like a compromise can be reached on that . Headla: I hear words but I don' t know what they' re proposing . Put it dowr in writing and let them work it out with the staff . Conrad: Anything on 10, 11, 12, 13, 14? The developer had a problem with — the timing of construction. Seemingly it ' s something that could be worked out with staff . Batzli : How about as a last sentence , timing of installation of this line must be approved by City engineering prior to the issuance of any building permits . — Conrad : Sounds pretty good . Emmings: Take out the last sentence that ' s there now? — Batzli : Yeah . And replace it with timing of installation of this line must be approved by City engineering prior to issuing of any building — permits . Headla : On the first one on page 6 under drainage C-1. That plans that — continue to illustrate installation by the city are in error. I didn' t get, if you gave me prints , I didn ' t see them. What are you talking about? Where is that used? Olsen : On the civil plan, page 2. It says 72 inch storm structure designed and constructed by city. Headla : Okay, that ' s on these drawings here? So you should put that in here to remove that? Is that correct? Olsen : Yeah. We ' re essentially saying that the city is not agreeing that we will be the ones . . . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: September 28, 1989 SUBJ: City Council Update - August 28 and September 11, 1989 Agenda August 28th 1 . The Council approved the zoning ordinance amendments for definition of density, enforcement of wetlands and swimming pool fences . 2. The City Council also approved the preliminary plat for Ches Mar Realty changing the condition of 30 foot right-of-way back to 35 foot right-of-way. 3 . The Council approved the final plat for Lake Susan Hills West 2nd and 3rd Addition. 4. The City Council approved the reconsideration of the wetland alteration permit for filling in a portion of a Class A wetland for Daryl Kirt. 5. The City Council approved the sketch plan review for Market Square PUD. September 11th 1. The City Council reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores and felt that their intent of limiting the number and location of convenience stores had not been met. They directed staff to further review the zoning ordinance and provide a revised amendment which would further control the number and location of convenience stores . 2 . The City Council approved the PUD amendment for Trappers Pass with the Planning Commission' s recommendations . CITY 4F N\ Li CliANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning ,/ Mark Koegler , Planning Consultant DATE: September 26 , 1989 SUBJ: Continue Discussion on Land Use Policies and the draft Comprehensive Plan On September 13th, staff met with the Planning Commission in a special meeting to discuss forces which are helping to shape development pressures within Chanhassen and reviewed proposed policies that would be used in developing the land use plan . Staff was directed to prepare revised policies for those which were discussed in detail and to begin work on a draft land use plan. We have had an opportunity to begin work on the land use plan, however, we are not yet prepared to review with the Planning Commission due to a need to coordinate our efforts with infor- mation to be provided by the City Engineer who is currently out of town. We have, however, had an opportunity to revise the first 4 policies and in the process have added one based upon the discussions that took place that evening. These are presented below for your review and comment. We would appreciate gaining further input from the Planning Commission on these policies at this point since they will be used to further refine the draft land use plan. DRAFT LAND USE POLICIES 1 . Natural assets including wetlands , lakes , ponds , careers , and mature tree cover and areas should be incorporated into new development. Development plans for sites containing these features shall be designed to offer protection of them while using their presence to enhance the plan. Where possible the preservation of the features should be used to create buffers between different land uses . 2 . Development controls should be reviewed and assessed to ensure that new development is held to high design standards to ensure environmental and land use compatibility. Planning Commission September 26, 1989 Page 2 3. Chanhassen ' s current land use mix consists of the following: 73% single family residential — 8% multi-family residential 4% commercial 15% industrial — This mix provides the economic and housing diversity and employment opportunities desired by the community, hence, future land use plans should attempt to maintain this mix of — uses. 4 . Higher intensity development should only occur in areas — having an adequte transportation support system. Where higher intensity development is proposed in areas having inadequate access, improvement to the impacted roads should be considered as a condition of approval. 5 . Development of areas that can be served with gravity sewer should be given precedence over those aras that cannot. — 6 . Areas that can be provided with water service without major new investments in trunk lines will be given precedence over those — areas that will require significant investments of public funds . 7. Development should be phased in accordance with the ability — to provide services, minimize the costs in providing these services and to limit sprawl . 8 . Existing residential areas should be protected from intrusion of non-residential uses and traffic associated with these uses. 9 . Retail/commercial development should remain focused on the Central Business District. The only commercial development that should be allowed to locate outside the area are — small-scale local facilities designed to serve neighborhoods and employment concentrations and large-scale, special purpose type uses that would not directly compete with the CBD. — 10. Sufficient land for residential development should be allo- cated to meet the city' s growth expectations. — 11. An effort should be made to preserve agricultural uses in those areas of the community where services cannot readily be pro- vided. — CITYOF i CHANHASSEN t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning DATE: September 26 , 1989 SUBJ: Report from the Director The following Planning Commission items were discussed by the City Council at their meeting of Monday, September 25, 1989 . 1. David Headla' s letter of resignation from the Planning Commission is attached. 2. Reed' s Orchard Ridge Final Plat was approved on the consent agenda. 3 . Quattro Addition Final Plat was approved on the consent agenda. 4 . The City Council reviewed the Vineland Forest preliminary plat for VanEeckhout Building Corporation. Since the Planning Commission last saw this item, it was reviewed by the City Council on August 28th with staff' s recommendation for a road access from Pleasant View on the north and Lake Lucy/Nez Perce on the south. Concerns were raised at that meeting regarding traffic impact on Pleasant View and staff was directed to prepare alternative access concepts. These concepts were reviewed on September 11th where an alternative prepared by staff that would result in serving Vineland Forest temporarily with a cul-de-sac from the south that is ultimately designed to be connected to Pleasant View via Peaceful Lane in the north, was selected by the Council . This alternative provides for reasonable access into the area while minimizing traffic impacts on local streets . The applicant was directed to resubmit a plat that was consistent with this access alternative. This alternative plan was reviewed by the City Council on September 25th. Staff recom- mended approval but noted problems with drainage and the fact that two variances resulted, one for a 10% road grade on the _ connection to Nez Perce and the other for a neck lot that had 30 foot of frontage on Pleasant View. Due primarily to Engineering concerns regarding the connection to Nez Perce and the potential for the need to acquire additional right- - of-way, the item was continued. Planning Commission — September 26 , 1989 Page 2 The review of this item pointed out three potential problems with the Zoning Ordinance that may require further refine- ment. The first concerns the use of neck lots or private — driveways to access properties which have no frontage thus requiring a variance from the lot width at right-of-way stan- dard. The Subdivision Ordinance allows up to four lots — accessed by a private driveway, however, these are variance situations in the RSF District. Staff believes that the use of neck use or private access drives to serve lots which _ otherwise meet all development standards may be a valid con- cept for developing areas that are otherwise inaccessible by public street yet still constitute acceptable building sites. Due to the presence of environmental features and the local — development pattern, the use of private drives may be the most sensitive way of accessing a site. We believe that this could safely be done with specific standards with regards to — construction details of the private drive and other stipula- tions such as requiring street home identification numbers to be located on signage at the right-of-way. The second item concerns the lot width required at right-of- way on lots located on cul-de-sacs or on outside curbs and streets. The ordinance provides some flexibility to reduce — lot width at right-of-way for lots on cul-de-sacs but is not specific as to where this section applies . Historically, staff has applied this standard to outside curbs whether or — not they are located on cul-de-sacs. Again, staff believes that some sort of flexibility in the ordinance is warranted since the local topography and development pattern often dic- tate the use of curvilinear streets to produce optimal resi- dential environments. Staff anticipates bringing both matters up before the Planning Commission in future meetings as time allows . — The last item concerns Councilman Johnson' s belief that the tree preservation requirements in the ordinance should be reviewed to clean up the process . Hi Ladd, September 26, 1989 When I reapplied to be on the Planning commission, I had intended to complete the three year term. However, I now feel I cannot make the time commitment necessary to the Planning Commission's activities and still fulfill my commitment to my employer, especially the day after a commission meeting. Therefore, with some regret, I resign from the Planning Commission effective October 15, 1989. There is some flexibility on this date. If there is some other way I can support the cities activities, i would be glad to discuss. Sincerely, cc: (') L6L- David R. Headla Paul Krause 474-7269 L:TY C= :.r'r,i:t