76-02 - Chanhassen Shopping Center CUP pt 1�pttJTION B
P �� /c6+
cum ��2
< +�
76---2,
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE•P.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317*(612) 474-8885
August 4, 1976
Mr. Russell H. Larson
Attorney -at -Law
1900 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, MN 55343
Re: Chanhassen Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit
Dear Russ:
The purpose of this letter is to outline the conditions the city
council placed upon the issuance of a conditional use permit for
Jim Peterson.
As you know, the council duly considered Mr. Peterson's request to
construct a shopping center on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Frontier
Development Park. After discussion, the council placed the
following conditions on Mr. Peterson's use permit on May 17, 1976:
1. The developer be bound to the detail and scope of the
plans known as Exhibit A. (Said Exhibit A is contained in the office
file and was considered by the council on May 17, 1976).
2. Satisfactory signage systems be worked out with the Sign
Committee, Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Lighting standards conform to city requirements with the
details worked out with the city engineer and planning commission.
4. All unit charges shall be paid at the time of application
for building permit.
5. A bond for landscaping shall be furnished by the applicant
in an amount equal to the cost of landscaping as determined.by city
staff.
-,Mr. Russell H. Lax.'n -2- Au.gus t 4, 1976
-6. The owner agrees to the above conditions in writing.
Russ, please put the above in proper legal form at your.earliest
convenience.
If you have any questions, please feel freet to contact me.
Ver truly yours,
Bruce Pankonin
City Planner
BP:k
cc: Don Ashworth
OLUTION e c
Q`''r��
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASS3
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP 0. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317o(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Don Ashworth, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
DATE: May 10, 1976
SUBJ: Chanhassen Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Jim Peterson, Peterson and Associates
Petition: Construct a 41,584 square foot retail shopping center
on 4.3 acres of land located in the northwest quadrant of STH
5 and 101.
Background:
1. Community Location: As shown in enclosure 2, the subject
property contains 4.3+ acres of land commonly known as lots 1, 2,
and 3, Block 2, Frontier Development Park.
2. Existing Zoning: Ordinance 47, adopted by the Chanhassen City
Council on February 8, 1972, zoned the subject property to C-3,
Service Commercial. Within said C-3 use district retail shops
as shown in enclosure 4, are permitted upon the issuance of a
conditional use permit. (Ref. Ordinance 47, Section 11.04 and 10.02).
3. City Plan Proposal: The Central Business District Plan, which
was duly adopted by the Chanhassen City Council indicates the subject
property and environs assume a service commercial identity.
Mr. Don Ashworth -2- May 10, 1976
4. Municipal Services:
a. Sanitary sewer and water is in place on West 79th Street.
b. Storm Sewer: The City is presently installing storm
sewer in the Frontier Development Park. Part of this improvement
project is to upgrade West 79th Street to City standards. This
construction will be completed in the fall of 1976.
5. Design Requirements of the C-3 Use District:
a. Front yard Setback: For the purposes of considering the
applicant's proposed shopping center, West 79th Street should be
considered the front yard. Within the C-3 use district a front
yard setback of 40 feet is required. As shown in enclosure 4,
the principal structure is located further than 40 feet from West
79th Street, Great Plains Blvd. (STH 101) and STH 5.
b. Side yard Setback: A 0 foot side yard setback is permitted
by Ordinance when the subject property abuts any district other than
R-lA, R-1 or R-2.
C. Rear yard Setback: A 75 foot rear yard setback is
required if the subject property adjoins an R-lA use district.
As you know, Highway 5 and the property located south of Highway
5 is zoned R-lA, Residential Agriculture. Because of the irregular
shape of the lot, the curve in the Highway 5 right-of-way and the
mass of the principal structure, the structure is setback 86 feet
on the east end and 64 feet on the west end. The average setback
is 74.5 feet, and staff feels this was close enough to be in compliance
with Ordinance 47.
d. Building Coverage: Ordinance 47 requires that no more
than 500 of the lot area be occupied by building. As shown in
enclosure 4, 21% coverage is proposed.
e. Parking Areas:
1) Location: Ordinance 47 in section 11.06, subdivision
3, states ". . . parking area may abut the property if the abutting
property is zoned C-2 or C-3. Parking areas adjoining all other
districts shall not be located closer than 25 feet to the side or
rear yard." Because the property is located as a C-3 island
surrounded by I-1, CBD and R-lA (across STH 5) and the general
intent of Ordinance 47 is to facilitate a better overall design,
the planner, engineers and planning commission felt the proposed
landscaped green area (as shown in enclosure 4) mitigates the adverse
effect of parking areas located closer than the required 25 feet.
f. Parking Ratio: In Commercial projects of a general
retail nature, Ordinance 47, Sec. 10.07, Subd. 1, requires one
(1) parking space for each 150 square feet of principal structure.
Mr. Don Ashworth -3- May 10, 1976
This requirement represents a parking ratio of 6.67 spaces/1,000
sq. ft. of floor area. As shown in enclosure 4, the applicant is
proposing a parking ratio of 5.9/1,000 sq. ft.
Since the introduction of Mr. Peterson's Shopping Center, the
amount of one -site parking needs to accommodate retail customers
and other users of the center has been a problem shrouded in un-
certainty and conjecture.
Shopping center owners have often held one view, tenants another,
and public officials an entirely different opinion of how much
parking space should actually be provided. The problem has been
aggravated in those situations where local zoning ordinances
(Chanhassen's included) incorporated requirements for off-street
parking that have been proven, in actual experience, to be unrealistic
or excessive.
For a long time shopping center owners, lenders, tenants and local
governments have been striving to arrive at scientifically determined
guidelines that would establish valid yard sticks based on the
actual experiences of shopping centers in serving the public.
Accordingly, I have researched the subject and found that the Urban
Land Institute (ULI) was asked to conduct a survey of conditions
existing in shopping centers today.
ULI found the following:
(1) "In operation practice and hence for development planning
purposes, where there is virtually no walk-in trade nor public
transit usage, the provision of 5.5 car parking spaces per thousand
square feet of gross leasable area* is adequate as a standard to
meet the demand for parking space at shopping centers. This standard
accommodates the need for parking spaces at.shopping centers for
all but the ten highest hours of demand during an entire year. These
ten highest hours occur during the three peak days of the year.
It is uneconomic to provide parking space for such limited peak
demands."
(2) "Office space usage up to 20 percent of the gross leasable area
can be added to the center's complex without a noticeable increase
in the peak parking demand."
(3) "Where there is a significant volume of walk-in customers or
arrivals by means of public transit, or where there are other
mitigating circumstances such as a limited trading area or unusual
arrays of tenant classifications that have unusually low parking
requirements, then the parking space provision cited above can be
reduced proportionately."
* Gross Leasable Area is the total floor area designed for tenant
occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines and
upper floors if any, expressed in square feet measured from center
lines of joint partitions and exteriors of outside walls. This
does not include office buildings in which medical, dental,
research and other kinds of special organizations are housed, nor
theatres, although it does include banks and other such activities
which are a part of a shopping center.
r
Mr. Don Ashworth
-4-
(4) "As found in zoning ordinances at present, most
for shopping center parking call for a substantially
of parking spaces than are found to be necessary in
May 10, 1976
of the regulations
greater amount
actual practice."
Using ULI's parking standard, the Chanhassen Center should have no
less than 229 on site parking spaces. As you know, Chanhassen
Ordinance 47 requires 276 parking spaces and the developer is
proposing to construct 245 spaces. Based on the above, it appears
we have room for flexibility and still provide "adequate" on site
parking as qualified in the URBAN LAND INSTITUTE study.
g. Landscaping: As shown in enclosure 4, the developer is
proposing a continuous landscaped/screening area on the periphery
of the property subject to Planning Commission request. This green
area is proposed to consist of plant materials .(as indicated) plus
a 32 to 4 foot berm. With this configuration the vertical relief
of parked cars will be broken -up, lights from the cars will not
pass over public rights -of -way and the area is so designed as to
accommodate surface drainage toward SH 5.
h. Architectural Style: As shown, the applicant is proposing
a "western style" for the principal structure. The applicant dis-
cussed numerous times, with staff and the commission, that the
architectural theme will be carried on all four sides of the
principal structure.
i. Screening Roof -top Mechanical Equipment: The developer
is proposing a 4 foot parapet wall to completely screen from public
view, all roof -top mechanical equipment.
j. Trash Storage: "As shown" trash storage will be
completely indoors.
k. Parking Lot Lighting: The design details of parking lot
lighting have yet to be worked out with the City Engineers, Planner
and Planning Commission. If the Council approves the conditional
use permit, one condition should be that the commission approve
parking licj-its concepts before a building permit is issued.
1. Signs: As shown, the developer is proposing wall signs
for each tennant or leasable space. The applicant is aware of the
current sign moritorium and is willing to work with the sign
committee, planning commission and council to come to a satisfactory
solution for both an area identification sign and wall signage.
Planner's Comments:
1. In candor, the subject property is a difficult piece of real estate
to work with. The developer and his architect, Doug Moe, I feel
have done an excellent job in light of the physical constraints
of the subject property.
Mr. Don Ashworth -5- May 10, 1976
2. You will note in enclosure 4, the developer is reserving a
small piece of property for the city pylon sign. This location
appears to be adequate from the Sign Committee's perspective and
the City should be indebted.
3. On the subject of parking ratios, I feel the number of parking
spaces, as shown, should pose no practical difficulties or
peculiar hardships for either the city or tennants.
4. The landscaped/green area, as shown, should completely shield
light sources from parked cars from passing over the public right-
of-way.
Engineer's Comments:
The City Engineer's comments regarding the subject property are
contained in enclosure 5.
Planning Commission's Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission has been working with the developer
since January, 1976. The commission duly held a public hearing on
April 14, 1976, to consider the question of issuing a conditional
use permit to Mr. Peterson for the construction of the shopping
center. The commission's recommendation is found in enclosure 5.
Planner's Recommendation:
I am in total agreement with the commission's recommendation and
I therefore recommend approval subject to the following:
1. The developer be bound to the detail and scope of the plan
as shown in enclosure 4.
2. Satisfactory signage be worked out with the Sign Committee,
Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Lighting standards conform to City requirements with the details
worked out with the City Engineer and Planning Commission.
4. All unit charges shall be paid at the time of application for
building permit.
5. A bond for landscaping shall be furnished by the applicant in
an amount equal to the cost of landscaping as determined by city staff.
6. The owner agrees to the above conditions in writi
�V
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MAOSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
RAYMOND J. JACKSON
WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY
JACK E. GILL
FRANK V. LASKA
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
!1 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
April 30, 1976
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Subject: Chanhassen Shopping Center, Revised
Drawing dated April 27, 1976.
Gentlemen:
In the revised plan of the above -named subject., we note the
following:
1) The floor elevation has been changed to 952 for each of
the same three sections of the structure.
2) The drainage for all the propertyis to be run, on.the
surface of the ground, through three openings in the
4-foot high sight berm to be constructed by the owner
adjacent to the MHD right-of-way.
3) A conversation with Mr. Moe, the Architect, reveals that
their plan proposes the placing of two merchandise de-
livery ramps on the north side of the grocery store and
that the customers' automobile loading will be located
on the westerly side of the structure.
4). That the plan is to place three light standards, 40 feet
high, with four (4) 1000 watt mercury vapor lights.
The following are our comments on the above:
1) 79th Street does descend approximately 4 feet from the
east to the west end of the building. The floor being
approximately level with.the east entrance will make the
west end of the building 4-feet higher than the road.
However, if the floors of.each.of the buildings were,
successively lowered to eliminate the 4 feet, this would
produce steps in the sidewalks surrounding the outside
of the building. This would be hazardous and we, therefor,
concur with the Architect's plan.
�HOELL & MAOSON. INC. "�)
City of Chanhassen
April 30, 1976
Page 2
2) We concur that placing three openings in the berm section
will suffice for the storm water drainage. The Architect
must, however, present a plan with elevations showing this
runoff in detail.
3) We have no thought on this arrangement. However, we are
concerned with the storm water runoff which will be
solved at a later date.
4) The chart shown in a copy of the photometric data supplied
by the Electric Company, who, we understand, will furnish
these lights, indicates that in the two parking areas, one
on either end of the building, the footcandles intensity
of the light will be from 0.5 on the outside of their
effectiveness to 5.0 at the poles. This does produce an
adequate amount of light. This does not supply any light
for the approximate 100 stalls on the north and south side
of the building.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSPN , INC.
FVLaska:sjr
,,IOLUTION R,
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P 0 BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317®(612) 474-8885
STAFF MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 27, 1976
TO: Mayor and City Council -
FROM: City.Administrator, Don Ashworth
SUBJ: hanhassen Shopping Center Conditional Use Permit
Attached hereto please find:
1. Planning report dated May 10, 1976.
2. Community Location Graphic.
3. Application for Consideration of Planning Request dated
March 10, 1976.
4. Building elevations, grading, site and landscape plans.
5. Public hearing minutes dated April 14, 1976.
6. Planning Commission minutes dated April 14, 1976.
7. Engineer's report dated April 30, 1976.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APR1L 14, 1976
Hud Hollenback called the meeting to order at 8:25 p.m. with the following members
present: Mal MacAlpine, Les Bridger, Walter Thompson, and Jerry Neher. Nick Waritz
and Tom Noonan were absent.
ECOLOGICAL CU-1MITTEE: Dick Dutcher was present to discuss the goals and charge of
the committee. The caam dttee has met and reviewed the charge and felt that by
re -ordering the language they might fulfill the same intent but perhaps make it a
Tittle easier to work with.
Overall Goals:
1. Establish an ecological -recreational plan for the City lakes.
2. Establish general standards for water -based activities in order to provide a
duality recreational experience for all lake users.
3. Complete physical inventory of City lakes.
a. Consider the effect of various land and water activities on City lakes.
4. Develop an ecological -recreational plan for each lake.
He asked if the four goals are the general direction the Planning Conanission wants
the oomnittee to take and would like the Commission to prioritize the goals.
The Planning Commission asked the Committee to consider a number 5 - Develop
,ecological developmental plan for each lake.
A motion was made by Hud Hollenback and seconded by Mal MacAlpine that the Planning
Commission endorses the overall goals as modified by.the cccmnittee at the meeting of
March 18, 1976, in the following order:
1. Complete physical inventory of City lakes.
a. Consider the effect of various land and water activities on City lakes.,
2. Establish an ecological -recreational plan for the City lakes.
3. Develop an ecological -recreational plan for each lake.
4. Establish general standards for water -based activities in order to provide a
quality recreational experience for all lake users.
Notion unanimusly approved.
MINUTES: A motion was made by Jerry Neher and seconded,by Les Bridger to approve
the regular Planning Caamnission minutes of March 24, 1976. Notion unanimously approves
A motion was.made by Walter Thompson and seconded by Les Bridger to approve the
special Planning CmYnission minutes of March 31, 1976. Notion unanimously approved.
CHANHASSEN SHOPPING CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Members discussed items a through
d of the City Planner's report and foundno problems relating to the shopping center.
The City Planner feels that the City parking ratio for these types of ccnmiercial
businesses are excessive. There are other uses that aren't enough. He does not
feel that the 5.9 parking ratio as shown will pose any practical difficulties or
peculiar hardships to the general public or the tennants. The uses as proposed
should not have any extraordinaty use of'the land.
A motion was made by Jerry Neher and seconded by Mal MacAlpine that the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the petition by recommending a conditional use
permit be granted. Motion unanimously approved.
The area identification sign will be reviewed by the Planning Caamdssion and a
recommendation made prior to the issuance,of a building permit and also the lighting
standards be reviewed by the City Engineer and a recndation.of the Planning
Commission will be made.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 1976 -2-
A motion was made by Walter Thompson and seconded by Les Bridger that the eight
1oints suggested in the City Planner's letter of April 6, 1976, be considered at
later date as part of the consideration for approval of the project. Motion
unanimously approved.
MID-AMERICA BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICE CENTER: Gwen Wildermuth, Carver County Family
Services, and Philip Frazier, Executive Director, were present.
A motion was made by Mal MacAlpine and seconded by Jerry Neher to hold a public
hearing on May 12, 1976, at 8:00 p.m. to consider amending Ordinance 47, Section
6.04 to consider if group homes can be allowed as a conditional use or a permitted
use in an R-lA Use District. Notion unanimously approved.
BESSE FARM SKETCH PLAN: A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Mal
MacAlpine to table this item until such time as someone representing the Hesse
Farm should appear. Notion unanimously approved.
IMPERIAL REFINERIES OF MINNESOTA: Yx. Russell Nolting was present requesting
permission to remodel the station located on -Highways 169-212 and install a canopy
over the pump islands to convert the station to self service.
The City Planner sees no problem with the upgrading of the building and recommended
the Planning Commission find the face lifting appropriate and refer the issue of
the canopy to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and.they make a recommendation
to the Council.
A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Mal MacAlpine that the Planning
Commission approve the face lifting portion of this proposal and make a recommendatior
as a Planning Ccnm&ssion to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals that this body
does recommend a variance be given to the Imperial Refineries of Minnesota so as
the remainder of the proposal can be affected, that being the canopy over the gas
pumps. The following voted in favor: Hud Hollenback, Les Bridger, Walter
Thompson, and Mal MacAlpine. Jerry Neher abstained by reason of a possible
conflict of interest. Notion carried.
PARK LAND DEDICATION: Members should be thinking about regulations for industrial
and ccnmercial park land dedication.
PLANNING SEMINAR: Walter Thompson attended a Planning Seminar in Waconia and
reported the results to the members.
PAULY HOUSE, 461 WEST 78TH STREET: Planning C uu&ssion members discussed this
house as far as the things that go on there that are adverse to the goals of the
City. Les Bridger asked if there is something that the Planning Commission could
do. The City Planner suggested that one avenue might be to start enforcing all
nuisance codes of the City.
A motion was made by Les Bridger and seconded by Mal MacAlpine requesting that the
City enforce the City Laws as they pertain to this piece of property. Public
nuisances have been observed and the Planning, omrLission feels all ordinances of
the City should be enforced. Notion unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Mal MacAlpine and seconded by Jerry Neher to adjourn. Motion
Lmrm us
approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
aL'!&t'
Don Ashworth
Clerk -Administrator
PUBLIC HEARING
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHANHASSEN SHOPPING CENTER
APRIL 14, 1976, AT 8:00 P.M.
Hud Hollenback called the public hearing to order with the following members present:
Jerry Neher, Mal McAlpine, Walter Thompson, and Les Bridger. Nick Waritz and Tom
Noonan were absent. The following interested persons were present:
Douglas Mae, 3035 Lakeshore Blvd., Wayzata
Jim Peterson, 18200 Priory Lane, Minnetonka
Philip Frazier, Mute #5, Box 144, Excelsior
Gwen Wildennuth, 415 Santa Fe Trail, Chanhassen
R. N. Dutcher, 6331 Elm Tree, Excelsior.
Dan Herbst, 7305 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen
Chuck Towle, 320 Midland Bank Bldg., Minneapolis
The City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald.
The City Planner gave his report. According to'Section 23 no conditional use shall
be reoommended by the Planning Commission unless it shall find:
a) That the establishment, mai.ntenance.or operation'of a conditional use will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general
welfare.
b) That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the .immediate vicinity for purposes already permitted nor
substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.
c) That the establishment of a conditional: use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in
the district.
d) That the conditional use shall in all.other respects conform to the applicable
regulations of the district in which it is located.
In reviewing the site plan the City Planner found the following.comments:.
1. The applicant has not shown on the most recent site plan the areas of exterior
storage of trash.
2. The applicant is required by ordinance to screen from public view all roof top
mounting mechanical equipment.
3. The grading plan shall conform to the Engineer's requirements as outlined in his
memorandum of March 9, 1976.
4. Lighting concepts of both the parking lot and principal structure have not been
shown.
5. It would be purely speculation on the part of the applicant to specifically state
.the signage needs of future tennants. However, the applicant should be prepared
to discuss the centers area identification signs.
6. The four parking bays adjacent to the two access points should be eliminated for
sight distance reasons. In place of the asphalt he recommended a continuation
of the front yard into these parking areas in addition to some lowland plant
materials.
7. Although the petitioner proposes to develop this center at somewhat a lower
parking ratio than required by ordinance, the planner did not think that this
will pose any practical difficulties or peculiar.hardships to either the tennants
or the general public.
8. Any free standing or wall mounted air conditioning or heating units shall be so
located that they neither unnecessarily generate or transmit sound or disrupt
the architectural amenities of the principal structure.
The Planner recomrended approval conditioned upon the eight ccmu-ents listed above
and the design requirements of the City Engineer. The applicant should be bound to
the detail and scope of the following plans: site, landscape, drainage-, and building
elevation. Parking and landscaped.areas should be completed within.one.year of
Council approval.
Public Hearing April 14, �16
-2-
The Planner stated that because of the parking ratio being somewhat less than
required by ordinance, the petitioner should be bound to maintaining all parking
spaces free of obstructions especially during the winter months.
Bill Brezinsky stated the westerly entrance is located so that the catch basin would
be out into the entrance. This would take a minor relocation of this entrance or
moving the catch basin. As shown the entire area would drain to the low spot and
there would be a cut in the berm. This won't be adequate to take the runoff from
the area. He suggested the possibility of another cut in the berm on the easterly
part of the lot.
Jim Peterson presented a model of the shopping center. They have arrived at 5.9
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. He has approached sever super markets that
are interested in the area also two restaurantsare interested.
Doug Moe stated they plan to keep the trash within the confines of the building.
The mechanical equipment will be on the roof. Rather than enclosing. it with wood
screens they have extended the parapet up S,- to 4 feet which encloses the equipment.
They intend to have three 40 foot light towers for parking lighting. The location
of the area identification sign has not been determined.
The hearing was opened for comments from those present.
Chuck 'Ibwle - I am involved in the ownership of the land and the balance of Frontier
Park. I was very fortunate in having Mr. Peterson and Mr. Moe come to
me with the idea of developing this land into the center proposed.
I think it will be a definite asset to the con uanity. I am very
pleased to have a facility of that kind in the area.
A motion was made by Mal PbcAlpine and seconded by Les'Bridger to close the public
06-�
g.Nbtion unanimously approved. Hearing closed.at 8:25 p.m.
1
Don Ashworth
Clerk -Administrator
0 p a R T w
0 E F A I i L M N
-51
41 i
U,(
L
LA.E
KE
5
-0-0
LA.E
6
X/
—E-
IT—i -------
-------------------
gg g gg I J) }.6 .G..N -
VILLAGE OF
17
CHANHASSEN
STREET INDEX
ROAD SYSTEM DESIGNATION
20
—TE
L N o ��o R G T u v x
A E F K lk
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
RAYMOND J. JACKSON
WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY
JACK E. GILL
FRANK V. LASKA
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attention:
Gentlemen:
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
ENGINEERS ANO SURVEYORS
3] 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH 1. HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
April 9, 1976
Mr. Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
Subject: Chanhassen Shopping Center on 79th Street
Grading and Landscaping Plan
We have reviewed the subject plan which you submitted to us
on April 8 for our comments regarding drainage.
The plan shows that the storm water drainage will be channeled
to the east in the westerly portion of the parking lot. This will
eliminate the problem of storm water entering the Martin Ward property
on the southern extremity of the shopping center property. This meets
with our approval.
It appears that this 4.43 acres of land is completely confined
by an earth berm section which has but one outlet near the south-
westerly corner of the building. The land is to have an impervious
surface place on it. We do not feel that the land will drain proper-
ly under these conditions.
The westerly entrance to the parking lot as shown on the plan
is over a catch basin which intercepts the storm water from 79th
Street. This is not a satisfactory arrangement and the entrance
will need to be moved.
We called the architect concerning these two features of his
plan. He assured us that both these problems would be studied and
both could be resolved before the plans are finalized.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & N17ON , INC.
i
FVLaska:sg
\IO\-UTION R,
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE,@P.O BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553174,(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 6, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
APPLICANT: Jim Peterson
PETITION: Shopping Center Site Plan Approval
CASE NUMBER: PUD 76-01
Please include the following enclosures with your copy of Exhibit 1,
PUD 76-01:
13. Landscape and Grading Plan.
14. Site Plan and Building Elevations.
15. City Planner's Report dated April 6, 1976.
16. City Engineer's report dated April 6, 1976.
,,10�-UTION Q
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEaP.O BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317®(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: April 6, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
APPLICANT: Jim Peterson
PETITION: Chanhassen Shopping Center
PLANNING CASE: PUD 76-01
Background
1. This petition for site plan approval requires a public hearing
pursuant to Ordinance 47, Section 23, for a conditional use.
2. According to Ordinance (Section 23) no conditional use shall
be recommended by the Planning Commission unless it shall find:
a. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the
conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare.
b. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
C. That the establishment of the conditional use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
Planning Commissio. -2- April 6, 1976
d. That the conditional use shall, in all other respects,
conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it
is located.
3. If the Commission can (based upon physical inspection of the
subject property; testimony of the general public; and staff
imput) successfully answer all the questions in item 2, above,
then we should continue with more detailed questioning as outlined
below in the Planner's Comments.
4. Notice of public hearing was duly published and adjacent property
owners were duly notified on March 18, 1976, and April 2, 1976,
respectively.
Planner's Comments
In reviewing the applicant's site plan, I have the following brief
comments:
1. The applicant has not shown, on the most recent site plan, the
areas of exterior storage of trash. I presume this necessary
evil is going to accommodate "indoors." If this is not the
petitioner's desire, then the petitioner shall show the structure
enclosing the exterior storage of trash. Said structure should be
of harmonious design to the principal structure.
2. The applicant is required by Ordinance to screen from public
view all roof mounted mechanical equipment.
3. The grading plan shall conform to the City Engineer's requirements
as outlined in his memorandum dated March 9, 1976.
4. Lighting concepts of both the parking lot and principal structure
have not been shown. The applicant should be prepared to discuss
this issue with the Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 14, 1976.
5. At this juncture it would be purely speculation on the part of
the applicant to specifically state the signage needs of future
tennants. However, the applicant should be prepared to discuss
the centers area identification sign.
6. The four (4) parking bays adjacent to the two access points
should be eliminated for sight distance reasons. In place of the
asphalt, I recommend a continuation of the front yard into these
parking areas in addition to some low plant materials.
&I. Although, the petitioner proposes to develop the center at
somewhat a lower parking ratio than.required by Ordinance, I do not
think this will pose any practical difficulties or peculiar
hardship to either the tennants or the general public.
8. Any free standing or wall mounted air conditioning or heating
units shall be so located that they neither unnecessarily generate
or transmit sound or disrupt the architectural amenities of the
principal building.
ft
Planning Commission -2- April 7, 1976
Planner's Recommendation
Approval, conditioned upon the comments outlined above and the design
requirements of the City Engineer. The applicant should be bound
to the detail and scope of the following plans: site, landscape,
drainage and building elevations as discussed on April 14, 1976.
In addition, construction of the principal structure, parking and
landscaped areas should be completed within one year of Council
approval.
CITY OF GILIAN1-1ASSSti
AFFIDAVIT OF iV1AII..NG NI OTICu OF
PFZcLI;VLINARY IM11,1;OVEMENT HuARTNTG
'AL OF MiNNLSOTA ) .
C OUtiTTY O GARVjER'
DON ASHWORTH being first duly sworn, or► oat!-' d,-POsea
anC: says tilcZt 'Ale Is alid was on April 2 , 19 76 , the duly C. ualifiid
ac,:ing City Clerk -Administrator Ot the City Of Ci"la.ihassL'.n, �:ii;+iG'SOtu;
said date he caused to be mailed a copy of tha attachad not -Ica of heari.:,r on a _
Development Plan for Proposed Chanhassen Shopping Center iar►proves::�ai.c i�:
City iO,tha owner of. each parcel within the area. Proposed to be aSS2SS6u A. Said
improve-mlent as sea forth in said notice, by enclosing a copy Of said notice in an
2r1vv1G1'" a addressed to such owner, and depositing the en velop,-s addressa- d to all such
ow'iiiz,fs in ti,e 'United Stz_i ;s nails with postage Cully p epA.id thereon; that the. ai c
addresses Of suc:i owners ward those appearing as Such by the records oft ,e County
Treasurer of CarVUA- County, :/iinnesota...znd.bv. other. aoUrceriata racards_ ....... ....
1
i
Don Ashworth,'Clerk-Administrator
5ubscri'oed and swop: to
.�` day
iYut.W; ry 3 i�> N NLc.1,w'ws_.,a r.s:a.k ; ELH -)
bc;4ora rla this k
l9 � 4 �;�T, f.S:. �=! t l - ii'.ii•ii:.''�50.i P �..
Z"Z2
Lrpires Jan. M 1981
/ - r
Note Public ,
Mr. Frank Kurvers
7220 Chanhassen Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Mr. Daniel Klingelhutz
Rt. 2
Chaska; MN 55318
.-,
Brown's Standard Station
Hwy. 5 and 101
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mrs. Susan Klingelhutz
7900 Great Plains Blvd. f
Chanhassen, MN 55317
V ,
C.
American Legion Post 580
Box 264 a
Chanhassen, MN 55317 w:.
,x.,its
Mr. Martin Ward+
Box 213 =
Chanhassen, MN 5.5317 'sW
r•
State Highway Dept.
2055 N. Lilac Drive c �.•
Golden Valley, MN y
_ v • sja ,
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. g �'
Paul and Pacific Railroa6`�
3rd Ave. So. & Washingtor.
Minneapolis, MN 55401
,9
Mr. Charles Towle
Strong & Towle Inc. r3 ,
y °a
320 Midland Budding
Minneapolis, MN 55401
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PROPOSED CHANHASSEN SHOPPING CENTER.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City
of Chanhassen, Minnesota, will meet on Wednesday, the 14th day of
April, 1976, at 8:00 p.m., at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive,
Chanhassen, Minnesota, for the purpose of holding a public hearing
on a Proposed Preliminary Development Plan for Peterson and
Associates and involving the following described 4.4+ acre tract
of land:
"Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Frontier Development Park"
A plan showing said proposed preliminary development plan•is
available for inspection at the City Hall.
All persons interested may appear and be heard at said time
and place.
BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING C014MISSION
Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
Dated: March 12, 1976
(Publish in the March 18, 1976, in the Carver County Herald.)
AFFIDA'% OF PUBLICATION
6tate of Auuneota,
ss.
County of .......... Carver ....................._ ............................
....................
�• M Mc r..................................I being duly sworn,
.................. •........ . ..,gar...r..y....................................... .
herein stated has been the publisher and printer Of
on oath says he is and during all the times
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN
MINNESOTA
-, and has full
the newspaper known as.........(..ar..v.ex.....CO.UT1. •"•� S•T'old•"""""'-""'"''"
is printed in the English
COUNTIES,
knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (1) Said newspaper
in and sheet form equivalent in printed space to at
NOTICE OF PUBLIC GEARING
ON PROPOSED PRELIMINARY
language in newspaper format and column
inches. (2) Said newspaper is a weekly and is distributed at least once eac.
least 900 interest
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FO__
PROPOSED CHANHASSEN
CENTER.
square
week. (3) Said newspaper has 50 percent of its news columns devoted to news of local
it to serve and does not wholly duplicate any other publica
SHOPPING
to the community which purports
late matter and advertisements. (4) Said news
of Patents, ¢has
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Planning Commission of
tion and is not made up entirely
paper is circulated in and near the municipality which it purports to serve, ercenttof its tot0a
of at east ¢
the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota,
Wednesday,
will meet on Wednesday, the 14th
copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, has an average
than three months in arrears and has entry as second
day of April, 6:00 p.m., �t
Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive,
circulation currently paid or no more
Said newspaper ur orts to serve the......C. t• "••
the City
class matter in its local port -office. (5)purports
Chanhassen, Minnesota, for the
purpose of holding a public hearing
ofCka.................................. in the County of ...... ......ar..V.Q..r......................... .....
on a Proposed Preliminary
Development Plan for Peterson and
.................�.ar`5..
'
it has known office of issue in the......... ci.:tV......... of .... ......C.ha S,K.a,""""•"" .... """"•"
Associates and involving the
following described 4.4(more or
and its
in said county, established and open during its regular business hours for the gathering c
by publisher of sai
less) acre tract of land:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2,
news, sale of advertisements and sale of subscriptions and maintained
to his direction and control during al suc
Frontier Development Park'-
A plan showing said proposed
newspaper or persons in his employ and subject
regular business hours and at which said newspaper is printed. (6) Said newspaper files a cop
Said has comp ie
preliminary development plan is
available for inspection at the City
of each issue immediately with the State Historical Society. (7) newspaper
g y ublicatic
for at least two years preceding the da or dates of p
Hall.
All persons interested may ap-
with all the foregoing conditions
mentioned below. (8) Said newspaper has filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota prii
form prescribed by t)
pear and be heard at said time and
place.
to January 1, 1966 and each January 1 thereafter an affidavit in the
by the of newspaper, and sworn to before a nota
Secretary of State and signed publisher
BY ORDER OF THE
public stating that the newspaper is a legal newspaper.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Is) Bruce Pankonin
He further states on oath that the printed Notice of hereto
a+
Bruce Pankonin,
City Planner
attached as a part hereof was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed
Dated: March 12 •97c,
(Publish March 18, 1976, in the
� wee,
published therein in the English language, once each week, for.......One...........�r
Carver County Herald.)
that it was first so published on.�.'.�iUT',�C�".c`lv:..... ...the............ 16.ti.rl....,,,.•....•,•.............day
March ....................................... , 197.b. anr3KiY�}�iiii&k�T$>�I�Ya3�ib��.
KPTxx�xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxv� rx ��=Xxxxxxx.;�xxxx.xx:
ztfX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXX�x""• and that the following is a printed cc
is hereby acknowledged as he:
of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and
si ion and publication of said notice, to -wit:
the size and kind of type use?cde
hij nop
uvwxyz
Subm"ibed and su-w a to beldai of . ....... 19..I
"otary Public_ CCL- ... County. Afin.ne
.-,iy Commission Expires..._.... ... CIL I I ... . 79
ORRAINE LANO
RY PUBLIC — MINNEWA
E�4
MAR1976 �
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF 44J
CHANHASSEN, Uzi
/MtI{NN.t n�Ct�
JIM PETERSON f Telephone:
President (612) 474-3095
PETERSON DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC. r
18200 PRIORY LANE
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343
March 31, 1976
Chanhassen City Council
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Al;.inn. 55317
Re: Industrial Revenue Bonds to
finance Chanhassen Plaza Shopping
Center.
GentleLen,
I would like to meet with all of you to discuss the
possibility of pursuing an Industrial Development Bond, for
the purpose of obtaining financing of said "Chanhassen Plaza"
Shoppir.: Center development.
We, as a partnership, ,could commit to the requirements
necessary for such funding by vrays of equity participation
by using the value of land and equity needed to procure such
financing.
zri 11 provide the strength of w "General Partner" with
substantial not taorth and a substantial anchor tenant and
other credible tenants to make "Chanhassen Plaza" a successful
development.
I would like to discuss all of the things pertinent to
this type of pro,;;ram by meeting with you :-onday, April 5th at
the re -ular council. meeting. I have asked to be placed on
the agenda for that night. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
James Peterson
411 a
�., A PR 1976
AR
VIL.L.AOg op
aH [Y.BEk, c
,��°C61s
pLUTION
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE •P 0. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317+(612) 474-8885
March 12, 1976
Carver County Herald
123 West 2nd Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Chanhassen Legals
Dear Sir:
Please publish the enclosed legal notice of hearing in the March
18, 1976, edition of the Carver County Herald. Also, please
furnish Chanhassen with your usual statement of charges and
affidavit of publication.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce Pankonin
City Planner
BP:k
Enclosure
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PROPOSED CHANHASSEN SHOPPING CENTER.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City
of Chanhassen, Minnesota, will meet on Wednesday, the 14th day of
April, 1976, at 8:00 p.m., at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive,
Chanhassen, Minnesota, for the purpose of holding a public hearing
on a Proposed Preliminary Development Plan for Peterson and
Associates and involving the following described 4.4+ acre tract
of land:
"Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Frontier Development Park"
A plan showing said proposed preliminary development plan is
available for inspection at the City Hall.
All persons interested may appear and be heard at said time
and place.
BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
Dated: March 12, 1976
(Publish in the March 18, 1976, in the Carver County Herald.)
-35-
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD)
or CASE NO. PRD/PCD��j,
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (PCD)
City of Chanhassen
Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST
Date of Application 3 /b/7 ,(
Escrow Paid Date
Received by � '<
1=T
Applicant /�
Name: &--/I./t,f0A _ .
Last F ri st Initia
Address: /
Owner
Las
Firs
ty
e Zip Code
a
Address: A lg!�I- -s
Number and Street City State Zip Code
Address of property in question:
Legal description of property in question:
Present zoning of property: C. -3
Present use of property: P/�C o�%
Proposed use of property: t1i C
The following documents shall be attached to this application:
1. Sketch Plan
2. Preliminary Development Plan
3. Escrow Account
Date Received Initial
/✓/ 4
+' -36-
Date Received Initial
4. Abstractor's Certificate
5. Final Development Plan
I hereby declare that all statements made in this application and on
the attached documents are true, and that I shall reimburse the
City for all expenses incurred in processing this application for
planned unit development. 1_-,
ignature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Date
Received by Title Dai
(Following to be completed by Aoning Administrator or City Official)
CHRONOLOGY
DATE
BY
Sketch Plan on Planning Commission Agenda
12C
Planning Commission Postponed to
Preliminary Development Plan on
Plannin Commission Agenda
lQ
Planning Commission Postponed to
Newspaper Publication
Adjacent Property Owners Notified
Public Hearing
y (,
Planning Commission Action
/
Preliminary Development Plan on
Council Agenda
Council Postponed to
Council Action
Preliminary Development Plan Contract
Final Development Plan or
Planning Commission Agenda
Planning Commission Postponed to
Final Development Plan on Council Agenda
Council Postponed to
Final Development Plan Contract Executed
Escrow Returned - Amount:
-37-
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (Preliminary Development Plan)
On this d aa r,, 1911 ep , this-_"_r••-•;'= e1414 ab
was recommended for pprov , (disapproval) subject to the
following conditions:
.Su .0.1 �'-�. /mow►• �r/a�1 /�ii7.y- /l /�
Chairman of Planning Conmission
Action by City - Preliminary Development Plan
On this 11 day of 11619PIZe , th C hassen City
Council, Carver an Hennepin Counts s, Minnesota approved), (disapprov
this Preliminary PRD/PCD subject to the following con ons:
By order of the Chanhassen
City Council
Mayor ------ -- ---
Attest:
City Administrator
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - Final Development Plan
On this day of _ 19 this Final
Development Plan was recommended for (approval), (disapproval) subject
to the following conditions:
Chairman of Planning Commission
Action by City - Final Development Plan
On this day of 19 the Chanhassen City
Council, Carver and Hennepin CCou es, Minnesota (approved), (disapprov
this Final PRD/PCD subject to the following conditions:
By order of the Chanhassen
City Council
Mayor
Attest:
City Aministrator
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
RAYMOND J. JACKSON
WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY
JACK E. GILL
FRANK V. LASKA
SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
March 9, 1976
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Subject: Drainage for the Chanhassen
Shopping Center.
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the drawings submitted to us for the above -
named subject. We note that the Architect has stepped the floor
elevations, changed the grade of the parking lot on the west end
of the complex, and has shown a sight berm 3'6" high on the right-
of-way line of TH 5 and TH 101. These features were requested by
the Planning Commission.
I talked with Mr. Moe, the Architect, this morning and re-
minded him of the conversation:we had relative to the drainage
across the M. S. Ward property and the fact that the drainage from
this complex was to outlet into the east 24" pipe across TH 5.
He stated that this would be done when the detailed plans were
formulated and drawn.
When the final site plan is formulated, some means must be
devised to drain the storm water from the property through the
sight berm into the highway ditch. This must be a positive solution
with perhaps drive -over catch basins and underground piping. We feel
that open pipe through the berm will clog, particularly with the
snow and ice with which we are faced each winter season.
The Architect seems interested in bringing the various prob-
lems mentioned to them to a mutual satisfactory conclusion.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSOR-, INC.
FVLaska:sjr
-10
MAR1976
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF
�Q� CHANHASSEN,
,,IOuUTION Q,
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHAIRMEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317*(612) 474-3885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: March 4, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankonn, City Planner
SUBJ: Chanhassen Shopping Center, Preliminary Development Plan and
Plan Discussion
APPLICANT: Jim Peterson
PLANNING CASE: PUD 76-01
Background
As shown in exhibits 1 - 10, the applicant is proceeding under the
design criteria of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). At the present
time, the applicant is at Step 4 in the PUD process as outlined
in the procedures for planned unit development approval.
Planner's Comments
1. I have reviewed all documents as outlined in exhibits 1 - 10
and find the program, as proposed, to be positively consistent with
the spirit and intent of Ordinance 47, the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Central Business District Plan and the conversations
staff and planning commission have had with the applicant to date.
I, therefore, recommend the City order a public hearing to be held
on April 14, 1976, to test neighborhood sentiment on the question
of a retail center as proposed to be located on Lots 1-3, Block 2,
Frontier Development Park.
Planning Commission
2. Parking Ratio:
center, the amount
customers and other
in uncertainty and
IWO
� 1\
March 4, 1976
Since the introduction of Mr. Peterson's shopping
of one -site parking needs to accommodate retail
users of the center has been a problem shrouddd
conjecture.
Shopping center owners have often held one view, tenants another,
and public officials an entirely different opinion of how much
parking space should actually be provided. The problem has been
aggravated in those situations where local zoning ordinances (Chan-
hassen's included) incorporated requirements for off-street parking
that have been proven, in actual experience, to be unrealistic or
excessive.
For a long time shopping center owners, lenders, tenants and local
governments have been striving to arrive at scientifically determined
guidelines that would establish valid yard sticks based on the
actual experiences of shopping centers in serving the public.
Accordingly, I have researched the subject and found that the Urban
Lank Institute (ULI) was asked to conduct a survey of conditions
existing in shopping centers today.
ULI found the following:
a. "In operation practice and hence for development planning purposes,
where there is virtually no walk-in trade nor public transit usage,
the provision of 5.5 car parking spaces per thousand square feet
of gross leasable area* is adequate as a standard to meet the demand
for parking space at shopping centers. This standard accommodates
the need for parking spaces at shopping centers for all but the ten
highest hours of demand during an entire year. These ten highest
hours occur during the three peak days of the year. It is uneconomic
to provide parking space for such limited peak demands."
b. "Office space.usage up to 20 percent of the gross leasable area
can be added to the center's complex without a noticeable increase
in the peak parking demand."
C. "Where there is a significant volume of walk-in customers or
arrivals by means of public transit, or where there are other
mitigating circumstances such as a limited trading area or unusual
arrays of tenant classifications that have unusually low parking
requirements, then the parking space provision cited above can be
reduced proportionately."
d. "As found in zone ordinances at present, most of the regulations
for shopping center parking call for a substantially greater amount
of parking spaces than are found to be necessary in actual practice."
* Gross Leasable Area is the total floor area designed for tenant
occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines and
upper floors if any, expressed in square feet measured from center
lines of joint partitions and exteriors of outside walls. This
does not include office buildings in which medical, dental,
research and other kinds of special organizations are housed, nor
theaters, although it does include banks and other such activities
which are a part of a shopping center.
Planning Commission -3 March 4, 1976
Using ULI's parking standard, the Chanhassen Center should have no
less than 229 on site parking spaces. As you know, Chanhassen
Ordinance 47 requires 276 spaces and the developer is proposing to
construct 267 spaces. Based on the above, it appears we have
room for flexibility and still provide "adequate" on site parking
as qualified in the URBAN LAND INSTITUTE study.
3. Maneuvering Area: Contemporary standings for maneuvering
area require a minimum of 43 feet for 900 Parking and maneuvering
area. Based on this criteria, the parking area, located to the
south of the center, could be reduced to the said 43 feet and the
remaining area could be included as landscaped green area (45 feet
is proposed in exhibit 10.)
4. Landscaping: As shown, the applicant is proposing a continuous
landscape/screened . area on the peripheral of the property pursuant
to planning commission request. On the north property line
(adjacent to W. 79th Street) I feel this green area should be
expanded by an additional 6 to 8 feet. This expansion would require
the removal of 8 parking spaces from the north -south parking bays
located on the east and west sides of the building. Based upon
ULI standards, as discussed above, this further reduction of
parking space should not have an adverse effect on parking demand.
As shown in the City Engineer's report under date of February 25,
1976, drainage is to directed away from the Ward property and
toward the state highway ditch. Mr. Laska suggests a certain curb
style and the developer is proposing plant material and a 3z foot
berm. Care in design in Said berm will have to be very sensative
to reflect the drainage details of the City Engineer and still
restricting headlights from passing over Highway 5.
5. Architectural Style: As shown in enclosure 10, the applicant
is proposing a "western style" for the principal structure. As
discussed by the applicant and planning commission, said theme
is to be carried on all 4 sides of the principal structure.
PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATION
Order public hearing for April 14, 1976.
,_,,10\-UTION o,
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553170(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 4, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
APPLICANT: Moe/Peterson, Chanhassen Shopping Center, Lots 1-3,
Block 2, Frontier Industrial Park
CASE NUMBER: PUD 76-01
Please include the following enclosures with your copy of Exhibit 1,
PUD 76-01.
Enclosures:
9. Planning Commission minutes dated February 25, 1976.
10. Preliminary development plan dated February 18, 1976.
11. City Planner's report dated March 4, 1976.
12. City Engineer's report (to be delivered on March 10, 1976).
Regular Planning Commission Meeting February 25, 1976 -2-
A motion was made by Mal MacAlpine and seconded by Tom Noonan to schedule a public
hearing on March 24, 1976, at 8:00 p.m. to consider the preliminary development plan
for Hanus PUD 75-02. Notion unanimously approved.
PETERSON PUD 76-01 SKE"M1 PLAN: Ioug Noe and Jirl Peterson were present. The uses
that are proposed are perm ted as a conditional use within the C-3 use district.
A revised drawing labeled Exhibit A-1 dated February 18, 1976, was presented. The
orientation of the building has been changed. The restaurant is on the east and
grocery store on the west with retail in between. The building meets all setback
requirements. The developer has reserved an area for the City pylon sign. 'The
ordinance requires one parking space for every 150 square feet of building. The
plan has ten spaces less than the ordinance requires. The Planner feels this won't
have a significant affect. He recomn-ends the Planning Commission encourage the
applicant to proceed with preliminary development plans with particular emphasis
placed on the drainage and landscaped areas.
�G Frank Laska explained his report of February 25, 1976. He recommended that solid
�! curbs be placed adjacent to the Martin Ward property and that the drainage flow be
directed eastward rather than westward across Mr. Ward's property. He further
recommended that the curb along the State Highway right-of-way be open at the
bottom so that water will run through frcgm the parking lot into the ditch. The
building should be .raised three or four feet so that the exit rams from the drive
in the parking lot would be at the same grade as the gutter line in the street.
Central Business District Conmittee has reviewed the plans and recommended that
Planning Commission look positively on this proposal. They pointed out that
parking spaces do not conform to the ordinance.
Planning Commission members gave their comments on the proposal.
Mal MacAlpine - I feel it is a major improvement over the last plan.
Les Bridger - I don't think the parking is going to be any kind of a problem. I
like it. I recommend they proceed.
Tom Noonan - Very good. I like it.
Walter Thompson - Great.
Nick Waritz - I think it looks like a good plan.
PROJECT NEWGATE: Ron Severson, Don Schwaub, and Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Chapman were
present. The City Planner reviewed the background of this proposal. The property
is the former Assumption Seminary on Highway 212 and is zoned R-lA. Representatives
of Project Newgate appeared before the Planning Commission in June 1975 asking if the
Planning Commission would sponsor an amendment to the R-lA District to allow medical
and social service institutional land uses as a conditional use. At that time the
Planning Commission said no. The Planning Commission felt it was at cross-purposes
to the regulations of the City to channel urban type uses in the urban area and
leave the rural area. In October 1975 Project Newgate asked if the City Council
would sponsor an amendment to allow medical and social service institutional land use
as a conditional use in an R-lA use district. The Council at that time felt it
would be more appropriate for Project Newgate to proceed under the design provisions
of P-3 and let Project Newgate stand on its own merits.
The Planner and City Attorney feel that the plan should be limited to sketch plan
review under Ordinance 47. Any further consideration beyond this is in conflict
with Resolution #119721. It appears the proposal is not consistent with the City's
development and intent. In order for the Planning C un fission to proceed any further
it would require an amendment to the Comprehensive City Plan and the Council would
have to consider amending all regulatory controls which place the agricultural
area in hold and channel urban type uses in the sewered areas.
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
RAYMOND J. JACKSON
WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY
JACK E. GILL
FRANK V. LASKA
SCHOELL & MAOSON, irmc.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
16121 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
February 25, 1976
City of Chanhassen
C/o Mr. Bruce Pankonin
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: Proposed Shopping Center in
Block 2, Frontier Development Park
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the plans for the subject project primarily
to see if this development, as schematically shown on the architect's
site plan, will correlate with the plans for Improvement Project
74-1A now under construction.
Enclosed please find the site plan drawing "Grading Plan A-2"
submitted by the developer to the City. On this plan we have shown,
in red, the proposed finished grade of 79th Street, pipe sizes and
location of storm sewers which are a part of Improvement Project
74-1A and the location and grades of the two R.C. pipes which take
the storm water from the ditches on the north side of Trunk Highway
No. 5 southward to its outlet.
We wish to comment as follows on the proposed plans:
1. In our design for drainage in Improvement Project 74-1A
all the storm water which runs off from north of 79th
Street, as well as that which accumulates on the street,
will be picked up by catch basins and pipes and run into
the ditch line of Trunk Highway No. 5.
The architect's plan shows that all the water is to run
southerly into the Minnesota Highway Department ditch
except for the westerly 200= feet which would run across
the M. S. Ward property before running into the ditch.
We feel that Mr. Ward might object to draining the
shopping center water across his property. Therefore,
we recommend that solid curbs be placed adjacent to the
Ward property line, and that the drainage flow be directed
eastward rather than westward.
2. The plans show that the developer intends to place parking
stalls up to the edge of State Highway right-of-way with
some type of curb on the right-of-way line. We recommend
that these curbs be Type 2, Drawing I-2, as manufactured
SCHOELL & MAOSON.INO.
City of Chanhassen February 25, 1976
c/o Mr. Bruce Pankonin
Page 2
by North Star Concrete Company; This type of curb provides
12" openings at the bottom so that water will run through
from the parking lot into the collecting ditch.
3. The plan submitted shows two entrances and exits from the
parking lot off 78th Street. The.grades on that street
will be 951.5± at the east entrance and 949.0± at the west
one. This will make the entrance ramp grades approximately
7% which is too steep for exits from parking areas.
We recommend that the building be raised three or four feet
so that the exit ramps from the drive in the parking lot
would be at the same grade -as the gutter line in the street.
4. There will be an 18®inch R.C. pipe laid -near the westerly
line of the proposed building draining the water off 78th
Street to the ditch line of Trunk Highway No. 5. This will
have a flow line elevation of 945 on 78th Street and 944.2
at the outlet. The architect proposed an elevation of 946
for the parking lot near 78th Street which would expose the
18-inch pipe.
If -the building and parking lot were raised approximately
three or four feet, there would be sufficient cover for the
Pipe •
We enclose a copy of the plans for Improvement Project 74-1A.
We suggest that the City give this set to the architect so that he
can use it as a guide in his design of the parking lot facility.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
FVLaska:sg
enclosures
l\ipLUTION Q
1776-1976
CITY OF
MANNASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP 0. BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553179(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: February 25, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
SUBJ: Chanhassen Shopping Center
APPLICANT: Jim Peterson
PLANNING CASE: PUD 76-01
Background
1. Existing Zoning: C-3 Service Commerical.
2. Proposed Uses: See Architects drawing A-1 under date of
February 18, 1976.
3. The property under cond.ideration contains three seperate parcels
of land, hence,. the PUD review process.
4. C-3 Design Requirements:
a. Front yard set backs of 40 feet shall be observed on
West 79th Street and Great Plains Blvd. Said front yard set back
is shown in the architects drawing A-1.
b. Side yard setbacks: 0 feet.
C. Rear yard setback: 75 feet if subject property adjoins
R-lA use district. The principal structure is located north of
the Highway 5 right-of-way in complaince to Ordinance 47.
d. Building Coverage: Not more than 50% of the lot area
shall be occupied by buildings. (21.5o cover is shown).
Planning Commission -2- February 25, 1976
e. Parking areas:
1. Location: Parking areas may abut. the property line
if the abutting property is zoned C-2 or C-3, parking areas
adjoining all other districts shall not be located closer than
25 feet to the side or rear property line. However, this application
is proceeding under the PUD process, where overall better design
can be attained by not adhering to rigid set back requirements.
2. Design and Construction: See engineer's report under
date of February 25, 1976, and section 9.07, Ordinance 47. Said
section 9.07 requires all off street parking which faces either
a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid
wall as fence or landscaped area to eliminate the penetration of
headlights passing over residential property or public right-of-ways.
3. Parking Ratio:. In commerical projects of .a retail
nature, one (1) parking space per 150 square feet of principal
structure is required. This represents a parking ratio of 6.67
space/1,000 sq. ft. Drawing A-1 shows a parking ratio of 6.43 or
10 spaces less than required by Ordinance.
Planner's Recommendation
Encourage applicant to proceed with preliminary development plans,
with particular attention paid to:
a. Engineer's letter of February 25, 1976.
b. Landscape screened areas as outlined above.
,,,IOLUTION A
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVESP.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINN ESOTA 55317*(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 23, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
APPLICANT: Moe/Peterson Lot 1-3, Block 2, Frontier Industrial Park
CASE NUMBER: PUD 76-01
Please include the following enclosures with your copy of Exhibit
1, PUD 76-01:
Enclosures
5. Planning Commission minutes dated January 28, 1976.
6. Revised Sketch Plan and Topographic dated February 2, 1976.
7. City Planner's report dated February 23, 1976 (to be delivered
February 25, 1976).
8. City Engineer's Report dated February 24, 1976 (to be delivered
February 25, 1976).
Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 1976 -2-
The City Planner will meet with Don Hanus, Frank Kurvers, and Daniel
Klingelhutz to discuss and resolve the problem of the road location.
Don Hanus asked for a letter from the City for the railroad regarding
the road alignment so that he can come up with a cost per foot of
the property. The City Planner explained that the Planning Commission
is advisory to the Council and a letter would have to come from the
City Council.
PETERSON PUD 76-01: Jim Peterson, Doug Moe, and Chuck Towle were
present. The property is Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 Frontier Industrial
Park and is zoned C-3. The use proposed is permitted in the C-3
use district upon the issuance of a conditional use permit. A
shopping center consisting of a grocery store, retail shop, and
restaurant is proposed on 4.43 acres.
Doug Moe gave the presentation. He presented two proposals. The
buildings would face Highway 5 with service entrances, loading bays,
and employee parking facing West 79th Street. The parking areas
would be screened with plantings and berms. They have attempted to
break up the length of the center by stepping it down in segements.
The stores would be connected with a covered walkway along the front
of the building. Proposal B has 37.,700 square feet of retail.
One parking space for every 150 square feet of retail is provided.
Proposal A has 42,000 square feet of retail. This proposal would
need a variance to allow parking in the set back area.
Jim Peterson feels they can work much better with proposal "A"
because of the size of the grocery store. A frontier type motif
is proposed.
Members commended and asked questions on the proposal.
Les Bridger - Will there be any trouble with ingress and egress
for the parking areas?
Doug Moe - For a building of that size there shouldn't be any problem.
Les Bridger - It looks good to me. I can't see difficulties. You
mentioned you were going to have berms in there, I
wondered if they were going to be fairly low or if
they were going to cover the building?
Doug Moe - To eliminate the problem of headlights interfering with
the traffic on Highway'5 we estimate something about 31-2
feet. A combination of berms,,andlplantings to soften the
center and -screen the cars. The berms on the north side
will be higher (7 feet) to screen the trash and service
drive.
Tom Noonan - You would expect semi's to park parallel to the building
and unload in that manner?
Doug Moe - It depends a little bit on whose shopping center it is.
Many of them have a standard plan they like to use and
re -use. Normally they have a loading dock and a semi
would park parallel to the building. The service to the
other retail areas would be far less of a scale. There
would be a loading dock behind the food market.
Tom Noonan - There would be a loading dock projecting out from the
building?
Doug Moe - Usually that is the case. There is actually 50 feet
at the point where the loading dock would occur.
Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 1976 -3-
Tom Noonan - I really don't have any objection. It seems to be a
good use for the parcel.
Mal MacAlpine - Why wouldn't it be considered to front the stores
towards West 79th Street?
Jim Peterson - This is the best way we could come up with the most
square footage.
Mal MacAlpine - I am just wondering about these shops on the north
side of West 79th Street how they are going to feel
about having trucks pulling in and all the cars
pulling in and having the backs of the shopping center
facing the fronts of theirs. I think that would be
a consideration of mine if I had one of those other
shops. I am not too sure how good it will look
either coming in that new street.
Jim Peterson - I don't think that will be a problem.
Mal MacAlpine - I like the whole plan. I was just curious as to
why you were fronting it the way you were fronting
it. As I saw it, it would seem it would front the
other way. It's going to be interesting what those
other shops have to say I think.
Walter Thompson - I think it is a difficult piece of land to get
maximum use out of. The plan looks reasonable.
Jerry Neher - I like the looks of the plan. We have a definite
need for something like that in Chanhassen. I would
like to see it go.
Hud Hollenback - The restaurant then obviously would not be a franchise
type operation if you are going to tie in the building
elevation scheme right down the line.
Doug Moe - It will be an independent owner of the restaurant.
Hud Hollenback - If it would go Red Owl or something do they insist
on their own elevations, etc. versus what you might
have in mind?
Doug Moe - It's pretty much in line with what we got on plan "A".
If we were to go with that narrow plan by reducing the
square footage I think they would balk on that. They
don't care about the outside as long as they have their
sign out there.
Hud Hollenback - My only comment is I am a little concerned, it is
an odd piece of property and I am concerned with
the space limitations primarily from incoming trucks,
etc. and employee parking if you do it this way
you are necessarily going to limit the size of the
berm. It's not going to be as high unless it is
a wall or fence or something like that because of
necessity you are crowding in order to get the
parking places we -require for square footage. I
don't have any suggestions. There is no compromise
between the square building and rectangular building?
Planning Commission Meeting January 28, 1976 -4-
[EDoug Moe - There perhaps is. I guess I have not come up with it.
It is a tough site to deal with.
ud Hollenback - It is. It's a nice location.
ECOLOGICAL COMMITTEE: Tom Noonan would like to get the committee
together within the next two weeks to begin the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Klingelhutz suggested that the four remaining members of the
Lake Study Committee along with a representative of the Park and
Recreation Commission, Dick Dutcher, and Tom Noonan work on the
ordinance. Planning Commission members agreed with this suggestion.
PLANNING_COMMISSION QUESTIONNAIRE: Mal MacAlpine and Mayor Klingelhutz
would like a copy of the questionnaire. Members are to fill it out
and return it to the City Planner. Points will be discussed at a
later meeting.
A motion was made by Jerry Neher and seconded by Mal MacAlpine to
adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:15
p.m.
Jerry Schlenk
Acting Clerk -Administrator
� L
O�-uTION e%
�1z. �2
Q D
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASS1
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317*(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: January 26, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankoni.n, City Planner.
SUBJ: Planning Case PUD 76-01
Background
1. Community Location: As shown in Enclosure 1, the property
under consideration is lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Frontier Development
Park.
2. Existing Zoning: C-3, Service Commercial.
3. Permitted Uses: See Section 11, Subsection 11.02 and 11.03
of Ordinance 47.
4. City Plan Proposal: Develop property under consideration as
service commercial.
5. Sanitary Sewer and Water is in place in West 79th Street.
6. Design Consideration: For the purpose of considering the
applicant's proposal, West 79th Street should be considered the
front yard and the project should follow the design consideration
of the P-3 development district because of the three (3) separate
lots under consideration.
7. Area: 4.4 acres.
~1
Planning Commission -2- January 26, 1976
Petition:
The applicants are proposing to construct a small shopping center.
The uses as proposed are permitted in the C-3 use district upon the
issuance of a conditional use permit.
Planning Considerations:
1. Conditional uses are those uses generally not suitable in a
particular zoning district, but which may under some circumstances
be acceptable. When such circumstances exist, a conditional use
permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied to issuance of
the permit and a periodic review of the permit may be required.
The permit shall be issued for a particular us.e by a particular
person, firm or corporation, and any such permit shall not be
transferred or assigned for use by another without the written
consent of the Council to such transfer or assignment.
2. Standards. No conditional use shall be recommended by the
Planning Commission unless it shall find:
a. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the
conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare.
b. That_the conditional use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
C. That the establishment of the conditional use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the
surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
d. That the conditional use shall, in all other respects,
conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it
is located.
3. The Planning Commission should also ask the following questions
when reviewing conditional use permit petition:
a. Is the proposal in conformity to the Comprehensive Plan?
b. If not, the next question is, "Is the current proposal
equal to or better than that shown on the Comprehensive Plan?"
"Is the current proposal within the intent and purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan?"
C. Only after it has been determined that the basic land
use or basic proposal may be appropriate, proceed to more detailed
questions. If it is determined that the basic proposal is not
proper, then there is no reason to proceed further with the matter.
yam.
planning Commission -3 January 26, 1976
d. More detailed consideration, include among other things,
the following:
(1) Conformity to existing rules and regulations
(zoning, building codes, special area plans, etc,.)
(2) General design (arrangement of buildings, land-
scaping, parking and so on.)
(3) Specific design such as building setbacks, access
drive locations and the like.
e. Almost all planning commission's merely note potential
legal, economic and engineering questions. Time saved under this
procedure by simply making a recommendation subject to such notes.
For example, a potential access drive problem is merely noted for
consideration by the City Council. Very few planning commission
delay decisions until all engineering questions have been finalized.
f. "Legally," the planning commission should base its determina-
tion upon land use relationships, safety, health and general welfare
consideration. It should be made clear that the planning commission
will not be swayed by citizen and/or developer pressure. In order
that the commission may gain and maintain the public confidence,
it must not be involved in the politics of an issue; the politics
are to be left to the City Council.
Planner's Comments:
Because of the restrictive size and shape of the property under
consideration and the restrictive nature of the "trade -area,"
it is most difficult to determine the most "appropriate" use of the
subject property. At this time, the commission should review
Section 23 (conditional uses) of Ordinance 47 and be prepared to
give direction to the staff and applicant as to the appropriateness
of the proposal at the next Planning Commission meeting.
SOLUTION B
1776-1976
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317*(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 26, 1976
TO: Planning Commission, Staff and Doug Moe
FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner
SUBJ: PUD 76-01
The following enclosures are contained within Exhibit #1, PUD 76-01:
Enclosure:
1. Community Location Graphic.
2. Sketch Plan Alternative A.
3. Sketch Plan Alternative B.
4. City Planner's Report dated January 26, 1976.
"I m-.1.4
41
OS )If 7-1f Al