4 Site Plan Review for Frontier Building
L{
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 4-15-98
5-6-98
CC DATE: 5-26-98
CASE #: 98-7 SPR
By: AI-Jaff:v
-
,
z
cd:
~
-
...J
1-
1-
r::(
~
~
.J.I
I-
-
:n
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Site Plan Review to remodel a portion of the existing Frontier building into retail
space with a variance to allow Non-Street Frontage Signs
LOCATION:
North of the railroad tracks and Pauly Drive, East of the Cinema and South of West
78th Street
APPLICANT:
Bloomberg Construction Inc.
525 West 78th St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
934-5850
Herbert Bloomberg
7008 Dakota A venue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
934-5850
PRESENT ZONING:
CBD, Central Business District
ACREAGE:
Approximately 1.9 acres
DENSITY:
N/A
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE:
N - CBD, Frontier Center
S - BG, Twin Cities Western Railroad
E - CBD, Frontier CenterlDinner Theatre
W - BG, Cinema
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.:
Generally a level parcel with the exception of the northeast comer,
with an existing building and parking lot.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Commercial
. ..<
~ y ""(,'2;/"..,, .x; ".
1 "''7 ~ 1:](5 ~ ' _____..
"~a 1III -:41' ~,....,j. te
5Jii",.r "'OJ J)j;;\t7<;~f~ .v_ ~ ~ ~ .. ,.. .,LeJ '.'
~ r "" '- r-r , ", \> 'c'
S, ~,\I1 'V L-.." l \:.t, I 0 '
.~&/. ",
~ ~ 1,Jj.~t'..~"y I~ la T;;~;" .
\' ~~ .... ~p ~ gJttJ n'e;,
~ n I~~ ;~? ~.Y:" """'~tr~ ~ p';'"" n~ '"
~ . I -'" 1iFi]!! , r '1'-'..J.;;' ..v ~
' C :.",;;: -<:.r ~- - v
\~ ~ ]/ ~s~ER)-~)~~II~ _~
-[C .-j ~1 c;,,~ II.'" ~ '" r\ 7 '-I'r ~
h3 1--. o.:t); """" 1+ \ ~ ~ >--.:_
2. 7 ,. 'l'l T ~h ~ ,OJ _
ao.--<, ':<:" ~~DrYl r6;fiv< ,dlaJ fj ~ n- L., __
t I-- =- rTTI .- T ~. ,..: >J ..
( ~ r l ~~ I I ,';~I r " ~ ~ e-
' T 1\ I --4-,,= ;',/
. r r'M - r .d:P
I 11~\;t\'.. It 1 . ~ ~ +1,.. _ ~A. =
L I~ ~ I " ~.a: 'll :=<i cJ:gi ~ '-,-< f- ~ I 7Uih ~
~ W~"_... U. '-~ fTTTf
~.~; J!"f'-;tJ tJ Ai ~ ~ 2~J 11I1.1I! ITIIIJ,IEm_
I ~~-Lj j~. ~ .. * L.:~ C __ mID V
IMBERLY LANE - Y , / r - -HI"", r 1
1m ~~ml ~! ~Ce""'JD ~ IljH" -, ~ ttHBr~
Nicholas ~y ~'. ll,.J. _
'LJ I ~~
J , '78111- t~
! ". ~ --,=:'^'~ .'-
' r----- . · _". ." . = r , .
""'- . = -
:;':'C""~':'_:"".':;"'"
-
'-: ~ '\: -~(::
.; ) ~ 1
I ~t '~ ~ ,l~'
... e{n Rai\{ d ;~. )\~ ~ ,..,~ {
-
: Road '-Nes~ ! State H~ \ r\ ~,>= !
. C\t\E1S I /' ~[ J \~~
N'" .'. ~fJ · -1\h -J ~
~ ~e :{ I 1 I~ (< -c- >-
-;j t ~ .~_
K
'.'o':\.:
;';'.
I
o
i
Lakt Su.sa n
k;
!'o.
~f
~1
I
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 2
Due to the history of this project, staffwill introduce the background section first then proceed with
the summary and analysis.
BACKGROUND
On August 3, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed a conceptual proposal from Lotus Realty
for the Entertainment Center. They found the proposal interesting, but had concerns about the
style of architecture. They recommended that the city hire a consultant to review the proposed
facade design and application to the building. The Planning Commission felt the proposed uses
were compatible with the downtown area. The City Council reviewed the concept on August 22,
1994, and concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Numerous staff members had in-depth discussions regarding this proposal. Several meetings with
the applicants took place to incorporate some recommendations we found suitable for this type of
development.
This area was studied in the Chanhassen Vision 2002 process, which was completed in the summer
of 1994. This area was identified as one of the building blocks for the downtown area. The study
stated, "The Dinner Theatre is the cornerstone of an entertainment center. This proposed
entertainment center will mix uses to include theaters, restaurants, commercial recreation, hotels
and related uses. The entertainment uses will be concentrated, allowing visitors to park once and
shop twice in a common parking area and move to the various destinations on foot. Its emphasis on
night time activities will extend the downtown's daytime vitality into the evening hours."
The proposal was intended to implement the findings of the Vision 2002 proposed uses.
On January 22, 1996, the City Council reviewed and approved an application for:
. 'I) Site Plan Review to remodel the existing Chanhassen BowllFilly's and a portion of the
Frontier building into an Entertainment Center
2) A variance to allow Wall Projecting Signs, Sand Blasted Signs, and Non-Street Frontage
Signs
3) Vacation ofa portion of Pauly Drive.
This application was approved unanimously by the City Council with conditions. The south
elevation of the Frontier Building was reflected on the plan. As a condition, the remaining sides
(east and west) needed to be presented prior to issuance of a building permit.
Following the site plan approval, the project was presented to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for financial assistance. The project received tax increment financing in the amount of
$1.5 million to cover the boardwalk, facade, landscaping, and parking lot improvements. The
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 3
Frontier Building's portion was $211,000 to assist in the facade of the building and $7,000 to build
the sidewalk in front of the Frontier building. There was also $300,000 for the parking lot,
however, this space was to be shared by the entire Entertainment Complex. Frontier's portion of
the TIP was $314,667. We must point out that the HRA approved the TIP based upon the site plan
approved by the City Council, which was presented to them. To date, Cinema is the only entity that
has a signed contract with the City.
On September 9, 1996, the City Council reviewed and approved the phasing of the project by
allowing the Cinema portion of the Center to proceed ahead of the balance of the project. In order
to provide adequate parking, the Cinema built the parking lot which is located south of the Frontier
Building.
On February 20, 1998, the applicant for the Frontier building submitted an application for a
building permit to remodel the structure. The design was inconsistent with the approved plans.
Through conversations with the applicant and his representatives, we concluded that it has always
been their impression/understanding that they need to get site plan approval and that the approved
plan was a concept only. We informed the applicant that they have the right to take this application
through the process which would include the Planning Commission, City Council, and Economic
Development Authority. The applicant was willing to go through these steps, hence, this
application.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting to remodel a portion of the Frontier Building into retail space. The
building has 3 facades that need to be remodeled. They include the south, east, and west walls of
the building. The existing materials used on the building include wood and glass on the south
elevation and corrugated metal, wood and block on the east and west elevations. Since the opening
of the Cinema and future development of the Entertainment Complex, this area is envisioned to be
one of the most frequented and busy portions of downtown. The owner of the property wishes to
add a facade that resembles the image of the Dinner Theatre Complex (i.e., mansard roof, wood
shingles, wood siding, roof mounted channeled letter signs, brick veneer at the base of the building,
etc.). The west side of the building is proposed to remain corrugated metal, with the addition of
five light fixtures that resemble those found on the Cinema. Staff informed the applicant that
corrugated metal was not an acceptable facade finish and suggested that since the west elevation is
part of an alley, the applicant might want to consider some alternatives that are creative including a
mural concept. The plans show three 12 x 4 foot framed, three dimensional murals. Though
interesting in design, they leave the majority of the corrugated metal exposed. This is not an
acceptable solution. The east elevation is proposed to be covered with lap siding and brick veneer
along the base. Mansard canopies are proposed at the entrances. Through discussions with the
applicant, they explained that this roof line will also tie in with the High Timber Lounge. Staff
agrees that the lounge has an inviting appearance, however, the height of the building is lower than
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 4
the Frontier and the pitch of the mansard roof is steeper, which makes the roof line blend better
with the building. The proposed mansard roof on the south elevation is substantially larger and has
minimal architectural interest and detail. Staff discussed this issue with the applicant's
representatives. They believe that the proposed roof signs will provide the architectural interest
which will also blend in with the Dinner Theatre Complex facade and sign criteria.
The design of the exterior of the building could be improved drastically. These improvements
include:
· provide wall covering along the west side of the building that would cover the corrugated metal
and add architectural interest.
· extend the brick veneer higher so it is the main material on the facade of the building.
· the sign band should be lowered below the roof line.
· change the design of the mansard roof along the south elevation by adding some architectural
detail such as dormers.
Since the April IS, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, staff had several meetings with the
applicant. Some issues have been resolved and we believe progress has been made. The applicant
provided detail on screening and improving the surrounding area. There are still some issues that
must be addressed and the following constitutes our analysis of the request.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
General Site Plan/Architecture
The applicant is requesting to remodel a portion of the Frontier Building into retail space. The site
is zoned Central Business District and is located north of the railroad tracks and Pauly Drive, east of
Chanhassen Cinema and south of West 78th Street. Site access is provided via existing Pauly Drive
and a curb cut on Market Boulevard. Parking is located to the south of the existing building.
Internal circulation of the parking lot has been approved as part of the overall site plan approval for
the entertainment center. All landscape islands, parking lot, and curbs have been installed,
however, landscape materials will not be installed until weather allows.
The building has three facades that need to be remodeled. They include the south, east, and west
walls of the building. The existing materials used on the building include wood and glass on the
south elevation and corrugated metal, wood and block on the east and west elevation. The site on
which this building is situated is a highly visible one and will likely become one of the most
important areas in the Chanhassen CBD. Since the opening of the Cinema and future development
of the entertainment complex, this area is envisioned to be one of the most frequented and busy
portions of downtown. Staff appreciates the fact that the building is being renovated. We also
understand that setting an architectural standard for this building is difficult in part due to its
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 5
location. The site plan approval requires architectural consistency with the surrounding area.
However, at the same time, this site is essentially the transition point from the Cinema building to
the Dinner Theatre complex. A design that would combine the style of the old town theme, along
with other downtown buildings is a sound one.
The owner of the property wishes to add a facade that resembles the image of the Dinner Theatre.
The windows on the south elevations are proposed to be lowered and enlarged, the wood painted or
treated with a stain, and a new mansard roof added. The west side of the building is proposed to
remain corrugated metal. Staff informed the applicant that corrugated metal was not an acceptable
facade finish and suggested that since the west elevation is part of an alley, the applicant might
want to consider some alternatives that are creative including a mural concept. The plans show
three 12 x 4 foot 3 dimensional murals. They leave the majority of the corrugated metal exposed.
This is not an acceptable solution. The plans reflect the addition of five new light fixtures through
the alley and along the west wall that match those found on the exterior wall of Chanhassen
Cinema. This component will give the alley a sense of balance and make it more pedestrian
friendly. Also, the sidewalk is being extended along the west side of the Frontier building which is
consistent with how this area is envisioned. It provides continuous pedestrian movement around
the Frontier/Dinner Theatre Buildings. The east elevation is proposed to be covered with lap siding
and brick veneer along the base. Mansard canopies are proposed at the entrances. Since the last
Planning Commission meeting, the applicant changed the design of these canopies. Originally,
there were three proposed canopies. Two of these canopies have been combined into one and the
overall design has been changed to reflect a 45 degree angle. The design remains as a mansard with
shingles but improved over the previous submittal.
A large garage door along the east elevation is being removed and a wall is taking its place which is
an improvement to what is out there. A sidewalk is proposed along all three sides of the building
which will make the area pedestrian friendly. Landscaping is being introduced around the building
which is another improvement to the site.
The applicant is not showing the roof top equipment on the building. Such must be shown on the
plans. All rooftop equipment must be screened from views. A trash enclosure is located along the
east side of the building. There are two proposed structures. One will serve the lower level and the
second will serve the upper level of the building. The exterior material for the structure is proposed
to be decorative block to match the retaining walls currently found along the rear of the Dinner
Theatre. The doors are proposed to be made of 5'iS inch wide cedar wood. The stain on the wood
will match that used on the building. Also, along the northeast comer of the building, there is a
storage/delivery area for a tenant in the Dinner Theatre building (Maytag). The applicant is
proposing to install an 8 foot privacy, board nn board fence, to screen this area. The zouiug
ordinance allows 8 foot fences in commercially zoned areas for the purpose of screening. This will
provide a much needed improvement in this portion.
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 6
Signage on this building will require a variance. The current sign ordinance specifically states that
signs are permitted on buildings with a street frontage. The Frontier building has no direct frontage
onto a public right-of-way. Staff is recommending approval of the sign variance with the condition
that the applicant lowers the sign below the roofline.
LandscaviD!!
Landscaping for the proposed development occurs near the building on the south, east and west
sides. The north side is currently part of the Dinner Theatre Complex and has not incorporated
landscaping into its appearance (to do so would mean removing cement and creating planting
spaces ).
The south side, the entrance near the new movie theater, has landscape groupings at the edges of
the building.
A mix of ornamental trees, evergreens, deciduous shrubs and perennials decorate either side of the
entrance. The revised landscape plan is an improvement on the original plan. The applicant has
used staff's recommendation to develop the revised plan and staff finds it acceptable. Landscaping
in the northwest comer has also been revised to include all of the planting elements mentioned
above.
One area that the applicant could improve is along the base of the columns supporting the mansard
canopy. This would be an ideal location for adding flower boxes which will add color and interest
to the area.
Lie:htine:
The only light fixtures shown on the plan include five fixtures along the west elevation that match
those on the east wall of Chanhassen Cinema.
Sie:nae:e
Signage is intended to advertise as well as enhance the architecture of the building. The applicant is
proposing back lit channeled letters on a raceway along the proposed mansard roof. It does not
appear that this design will allow the signs to become an integral part of the building architecture.
Also, Section 20-1303. states "Highway, general business districts and central business districts.
Wall business signs. Wall business sign shall be permitted on street frontage for each business
occupant within a building only."
Staff is not opposed to recommending approval of the variance. We strongly believe that the
applicant should be able to advertise the business. However, there are more suitable locations for
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 7
the sign that would make the sign act as an accent and architectural feature. Staff recommends that
signs be lowered below the canopy of the mansard roof. We also believe that a different type of
lettering is suitable in this area. The applicant mentioned the sign on the High Timber Lounge as a
good example. Staff agrees that it is architecturally compatible with the building and compliments
the roof line. It is constructed of wood and has painted as well as mised letters and logo. We
believe that such design is more suitable for the Frontier Building.
The intent of the sign ordinance is to establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and
equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service while promoting public safety and
enhancing the image of the community. In addition, the ordinance provides standards to ensure that
signage is an integral component of the building's architecture. Granting variances should only be
permitted when it enhances the image of the building. Staff recommends the variance be granted
with the condition that the sign band be lowered below the canopy and the type of sign used is
architecturally compatible with the building.
FINDINGS
The Planning commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance
unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
prolifemtion of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: Granting the variance will allow the businesses to advertise their products. The
design and location of the sign should become an integral part of the architecture.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which the variance is based are not applicable to other
properties with the CBD, Central Business District The location of the building is driving
the request.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 8
Finding: The purpose of the variation does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase
the value of the parcel.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged hardship is not a self-created hardship, again, it is the location of the
building.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements. Steps will be taken to ensure that the appropriate size and type of
fasteners are used to attach signs to the building.
f The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not significantly impair light and air to adjacent
property. Granting the variance will not increase congestion of public streets or endanger
public safety.
Based on the findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the variance with
the conditions that the applicant lower the signs below the canopy and consider utilizing a style that
is compatible with the building.
. Should the back lit letters be approved, the location of letters and logos shall be restricted to
below the canopy. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual
letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be
constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. Tenant neon illuminated
signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name
and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices
are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than
15% of the sign area.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
Based on the plans, there are no site improvements outside the building remodeling and
landscaping improvements. The parking lot and utility improvements are already in place.
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 9
Based upon the revised plans, the roof appears to have a poor drainage design along the west
side. The applicant is proposing to sheet drain the roof into a 4" deep, 3 foot wide concrete
flume (trough) running parallel and adjacent to the corrugated metal wall. The applicant is
proposing to collect the water in the flume then pipe it through trenches running under the
sidewalk, and into the alley. The design should be revised to collect the roof runoff into down
spouts and conveyed underneath the sidewalk.
UTILITIES
The building is served with city sewer and water. No additional connections are proposed. The
applicant should be advised that there may be additional sewer and water hook up charges due at
time of building permit issuance since it appears the building's use is being intensified. The City
charges a sewer and water hook up charge for each sewer available charge (SAC) imposed by the
Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission. The 1998 sewer and water hook up rates are
$1,264.00 and $1,584.00, respectively.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) preservatiou of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 10
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is generally consistent with the comprehensive
plan and the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements. The site design as
it relates to street furniture and architectural design, could be improved as recommended
by staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On April 15, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this application. The
applicant was directed to work with staff and prepare a presentation that addressed the proposed site
plan, specifically, pedestrian movement, overall design along the south portion of the building, and
how it ties in with the rest of the entertainment complex.
On May 6, 1998, this item appeared before the Planning Commission for the second time. One of
the issues discussed by the Planning Commission dealt with signage. Some commissioners felt that
the signage should be permitted on the roof of the building and it would help the applicant advertise
the business better.
The second issue dealt with adding architectural interest to the mansard roof. The applicant's
architect stated that "it would be truly a fake dormer for nothing, would serve no purpose." Staff
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 11
explained that the dormers would add intereSt to the design. There are fake dormers throughout the
community. The applicant explained that the owner of the property has a different vision.
The third issue that the Planning Commission dealt with was the design of the building and how it
blends in with the surrounding buildings. The southern portion of the area is presenting a new type
of architecture with the cinema. This will become the focal point where architecture would tie into.
There for, tying this building's architecture to the Dinner Theater is not convincing. The building
should serve as a transition between the cinema and the Dinner Theater. All the commissioners
agreed that the west wall should be covered. The Planning Commission agreed that what the
applicant is attempting to do is a definite improvement to the existing structure. The application
was approved with a vote of 4 to 2.
On May 20, 1998, the applicant prepared a resolution for the City Council to review and approve.
This resolution addresses all the conditions with the exception of raising the brick veneer along the
south elevation to the roofline and adding architectural interest to the mansard roof.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the Site Plan for the Frontier Building (#98-7 SPR), with a variance to
allow signs on a building that does not have direct frontage on a public street, as shown on the site
plan dated March 23, 1989, and revised on April 27, 1998 with the following conditions:
1. All existing and proposed roof top equipment shall be screened from views, specifically
from Highway 5.
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site.
3. :fne 100atieR efletters aRd leges shall be restrieted to belew the eaH:opy. The letters and
logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising
each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a
translucent facing over neon tube illumination. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall
consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and
major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying
devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not
occupy more than 15% of the sign area. The applicant shall consider utilizing a font/sign
style that is compatible with the building.
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 12
4. The applicant and/or their assignee shall be responsible for any additional sewer and
water hook up charges associated with remodeling the building based on the number of
SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Sewer Commission.
5. Fire Department recommends the following policies be followed (copies attached).
Policy #01-1990
Policy #02-1990
Policy #04-1991
Policy #06-1991
Policy #07-1991
Policy #29-1992
Policy #34-1993
Policy #36-1994
Policy #40-1995
Policy #44-1997
6. The west elevation shall be redesigned in a fashion that would minimize the appearance
of the corrugated metal. The brick on the building shall be extended higher.
7. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
compliance with the conditions of approval.
8. The applicant shall add some architectural interest to the mansard roof along the south
elevation. This could be done in the form of dormers.
9. The applicant shall add flower boxes around the base of the columns along the south
elevation.
10. The design should be revised to collect the roof runoff into down spouts and conveyed
underneath the sidewalk.
11. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer for the appropriate roof drainage on the
west side of the building."
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Resolution prepared by the applicant received May 20, 1998.
2. Plans for previously approved Frontier Building.
3. Application.
Frontier Building
May 6, 1998
Page 13
4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, dated Apri16, 1998.
5. Memo from Greg Hayes, Fire Inspector, dated Apri16, 1998.
6. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated April 7, 1998.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated Apri115, 1998.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated May 6, 1998.
9. Plans dated March 20, 1998, revised Apri127, 1998.
g:\plan\sa\frontier bldg.doc
The following resolution is proposed by Bloomberg Companies,
the Applicant, requested to be adopted by the Chanhassen City
Council, at its Meeting on Tuesday May 26, 1998..
RESOLUTION
Whereas, The Planning Commission on May 6, 1998 approved the
Site Plan for the Frontier Building (#98-7 SPR), with sign
variance, according to plans dated March 23, 1998 and revised April
27, 1998, subject to certain conditions; and
Whereas, The Site Plan and Applicant's submission comply with
the requirements of the Chanhassen City Code; and
Whereas, The Frontier Building was originally constructed in
1965 as a "Behlen" building, with exterior bearing walls of formed
structural steel panels, to be a facility for the wholesale and
retail sale of lumber and building materials; and
Whereas, The Frontier Building, since the closing of the
Frontier Lumber business, has had various uses; and
Whereas, Applicant's proposed renovation and redevelopment of
the Frontier Building represents a significant improvement and
regeneration of the building, which is expected to be a significant
contribution to the commercial life of Chanhassen;
Whereas, Applicant's financing for construction of the
renovation and improvements contemplated is in place; and
Whereas, Applicant's negotiations with prospective tenants for
leases have been ongoing, and signing of and commitment for leases
..pave been deferred pending City approval of the Site Plan; and
Whereas, Applicant and the Staff of the City Planning
Department have resolved by agreement many of the issues of
exterior design, finish, and materials, with some differing points
of view remaining;
Whereas, Approval of the EDA for the Site Plan and the project
for the purposes of Tax Increment Financing and approval and
execution of an appropriate Redevelopment Agreement is essential
to the Applicant's completion of the project, which approval of
the EDA will be sought by Applicant;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The city council approves the
site Plan for the Frontier Building (#98-7 SPR) , with approval of
a variance to allow signs [as shown on the plans submitted] on the
building which does not have direct frontage on a public street,
as shown on the site plan dated March 23, 1998, as revised on April
27, 1998, with the following conditions.
1. All existing and proposed roof top equipment shall be
screened from views, specifically from Highway 5.
2. Applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any
signage on the site.
3. The location of letters and logos shall be located as
shown on the plans submitted. The letters and logos shall be
restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual letters and
logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five
inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon
tube illumination. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist
of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's
proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos,
emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they
are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than
15% of the sign area. Applicant shall consider utilizing a
font/sign style that is compatible with the building.
4. Applicant and/or its assignee shall be responsible for
any additional sewer and water hook up charges associated with
remodeling the building based on the number of SAC units determined
by the Metropolitan Environmental Sewer commission.
5. Fire Department recommends tha following policies be
followed (copies atteached):
Policy # 01-1990
Policy # 02-1990
Policy # 04-1991
policy # 06-1991
Policy # 07-1991
policy # 29-1992
Policy # 34-1993
Policy # 36-1994
2
Policy # 40-1995
Policy # 44-1997.
6. Applicant's treatment of the exterior of the west
elevation, with exposure of a portion of the original "Behlen"
exterior wall of formed structural steel panels is accepted.
[Applicant's preferred approval.]
OR: [Alternate] The west elevation shall be altered from
Applicant's submitted plans to cover the Behlen steel panels with
painted wood panels, similar to and continuing the existing
paneling to the southerly extension of the west wall.
7. Flower boxes shall be installed at the base of the
columns along the south elevation.
8. Applicant's plan for disposition of roof drainage on the
west elevation is accepted, subject to Applicant's revision of the
plan if it is found to be unworkable.
9. This Site Plan approval shall be effective only upon
approval of the EDA for the Site Plan and the project for the
purposes of Tax Increment Financing to be applied for by Applicant.
*******************************************************************
Submitted By:
Bnomberg Companies Incorporated
525 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317.
May 20, 1998.
3
"
... .
:.' It,
~:~.\-. ~~ ..:~..~ .:~-.~-~.~..~ ". -.-;,- ~ .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Bh'~v~5Ete.,G C{/s.. .7iu <.:.
ADDRESS: .:;)-:25 tv. 7&6/r/' rJ~ '
-
c!,,1nnll1tf5s~N ~. SS-J/7
.
TELEPHONE (Day time) 9J.:f- - 58S7J
OWNER: I-k-~~:.,z~ ;y' dIt.7",t(,6~Q CJ
./
ADDRESS: 700 E' D.1-k C1'C/1 A-r -,c
e: h /hr.; it I"1QSC:?A_l 14j~1 . :.;'?;,-::J.17
9J+- - fA.:;o
TELEPHONE:
- Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Temporary Safes Permit
- Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements
- Interim Use Permit - Variance
- Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
;/' Site Plan Review* -X. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPAN ACN AA/W AP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
- Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
;::aolUf;~./2.. 4/1{ oel e I
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
YES
NO
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 Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement). or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
t will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approve9 by the applicant.
- Vt.A~. ~l\
Signature of Applicant
~~:ilfz
Date'
Date
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Received on
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
.....; "J'" C; v"
:", ' ;:5. f -:: Fee Paid
/- . J r c:: ~L>
't ~/t)...) -
Receipt No.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
) City Center Drive, PO Box 147
-:hanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.9371900
General Fax 612.937.5739
ngineering Fax 612.937.9152
iblic Safety Fax 612.934.2524
f~b www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II
FROM:
~{1: k: '
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE:
April 6, 1998
SUBJECT:
98-7 SPR (Frontier Building, Bloomberg Companies)
I was asked to review the variance proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR
23 , 1998, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project.
I have no comments or recommendations concerning this site plan review application at this time.
I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them
as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements.
g:\safetylsaklmemoslplanlNo-comnt
e City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A freat pface to live. work fllld hI""
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
Engineering Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524
\Veb WlUW. ci. chanhassell. mn.us
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
~/
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II ,'l
Greg Hayes, Fire Inspector c t. ' '
TO:
DATE:
April 6, 1998
SUBJ:
Request for site plan review, The Frontier Building, a portion of
the entertainment complex, located just east ofthe Chanhassen
Cinema, Bloomberg Companies.
Planning Case 98-7. Site Plan
I have reviewed the site plan review for the above project. In order to comply
with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the
following fire code or city ordinance requirements. The site plan is based on the
available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are
submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed.
Attached are the Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention policies which
must be followed during the course of the project:
Policy #01-1990
Policy #02-1990
Policy #04-1991
Policy #06-1991
Policy #07-1991
Policy #29-1992
Policy #34-1993
Policy #36-1994
Policy #40-1995
Policy #44-1997
If you have any questions, please call me at 937-1900 ext. 262.
g:\safety\gh\plrev98-7
The City of Chanhasse1l. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, ana
C 'TV OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
CHr\NHASSEN FIRE DEPART\tfENT POUCY
FIRE AL-\RM SYSTEMS
1.
Fire 31ann systems shall meet the requirements ofNFPA T2 1993 i:dition.
..,
Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Fire Department for appr:lVal. Shop drawings
shall included the following. Approval and acceptance must com?ly with NFPA 72
1993 Edition 1-7.1.
a. Connection diagrams.
b. Specification data sheets.
c. Schedules. for e3.cn device, including: location. function. zoning.
d. Complete diagr3.ms indicating: devices. components. int~~con!1'ecting wiring,
indic3.te bbeling 3.nd descriptions on equipment.
e. Floor pl3.ns indic3.ting device and component locations. c2nduit. raceway and
c3.ble roures.
f. Po\ver connections. including source and branch circuit c.::.:a.
g. Plan 13.yout and details of: fire a!.Jnn control paneL fire .::.i.:mn
subpanel5 tr3.nsponders. annunci3tor.
~. \Viring may be either a Class .-\ or Class B Wiring System. (Exce;tion: Wnen a fire
alarm system is used to 3.ctuate an extinguishing system that protects a special hazard
with high value. Class A circuitry will be required.)
4. All c.'mponems I.'f the system must be U.L. fisted for their application, com~ible and
instalkd per ~PA 72E. :\iational Electric Code and manufacture,'s requirements.
5. Alann veritication is required for all systems using smoke detectors.
6. \Vhe:; Central StJtion noriti-::ttion is required or otherwise providd. it must be through a
C.L. :isted -:ommuni'::Jwr. I.'r \iFPA listed Control P3nel. .-\11 Ce::rral Stations must be
l.L. ,iseed.
Ch3nna5sen Fire Depmment
Fire Pre\ entton
Policy =,_1: -1990
Date: 0..:. I9/90
Revised: 05109/96
Page I ('~.::
7. The alarm systems shall be audible above the ambient noise level in all areas of the
building. Alarm horns in each unit and all public areas, i.e. party room, pool, laundry
rooms. Horns shall be directly connected to the building alarm systems and supervised.
8. The system shall be zoned per Chanhassen Fire Department requirements.
9. A V.L. 71 Certificate is required on the system. The V.L. 71 Certificate shall be current
and required for the life of the alarm system and the life of the building.
10. A fully-function annunciator must be provided if the control panel is remotely located.
11. Health care, day care. and assembly occupancy notification must be by chimes, unless
otherwise approved by the Fire i\Iarshal.
12. All systems using standard horns or speakers must be set for temporal time.
13. The Chanhassen Fire Marshal must be contacted for final inspection of the completed
job. The inspection will include:
a. Test for proper operation of each device.
b. Random testing for system trouble.
c. Random testing for ground fault trouble.
d. Correct operation on battery or standby power.
~x:~
.
Chanha.ssen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy =01-1990
Date: 0..1/19/90
Revised: 05/09/96
Page 2 of:!
.-\pproved - Public Safer: Dire.:t0;"
C I TV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
EXTERIOR LIGHT AND HORN OVER FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRINKLER CONNECTION
1) Exterior Light and Horn for indicating Fire Department
Sprinkler Connection shall be:
a. Simplex model number
Horn - 31T-115-R
Light - WH3T-115-FR
or
b. Wheelock 7004-T
c. Notifier 5542862
or
equivalent per Fire Department approval.
~-4/
~ ?~;, U
Approved - Public Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy: #02-1990
Date: 09/04/90
Revised:
Page 1 of 1
#"
~J PRINTED C,'" RECYCL::D PAPER
C I TV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLlCY
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS
1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per
NFPA 13-8-2.1.
2. A fmal inspection by the Fire ivlarsha1 before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
3. fu Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of
construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the
Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at
construction sites. Details are available.
4. Onsite [tre hvdrants shall be provided and in operating conditiop during all phases
of construction.
.'
5. The ~ of liauefied Qetro1eum m shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard
Ss and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is
a\"ailab1e. (See policy #33-1993)
6. All fire detection and fire sUDoression svstems shall be monitored by an approved
UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final
occupancy is issued.
7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built
shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07-1991).
8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use.
" The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located
by the Fire ~'1arshal.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Flre Prevention
Policy #04-1991
Date: 11/22/91
Revised: 12/23/9J,.
Page 1 of 2
9. High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81
of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is
combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or
combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height For certain
special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids,
idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet.
- 10. ~. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy
#06-1991).
11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section
33050, Exception #5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements
for installation and system type. (See policy #05-1991).
12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/flTe
sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994).
~.,
/.
, 0./1 .
Get ,; )J^-=-
-
Approved - Public Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #0'+-1991
Date: 11/22/91
Revised: 12/23/94
Page 2 of :2
C ITV OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P,O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
REOUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
NO
pARKING
FIRE
LANE
/ f\-
7'0"
:
'\ II
1. signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18".
2. Red on white is preferred.
3. 3M or equal engineer's grade
reflective sheeting on aluminum
is preferred.
4. Wording shall be:
NO Pp....RKING
FIRE LA..1'iE
5. signs shall be posted at each end
of the fire lane and at least at
75 foot intervals along the
.fire lane.
6. All signs shall te double sided
facing the direction of travel.
7. Post shall be set back a
minimum of 12" but not more than
36" from the curt.
_ 8. A f ire lane shall be required in
GRADE front of fire dept. connections
extending 5 feet on each side and
along all areas designated by the
Fire Chief.
(NOT TO
SCALE)
ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SH.l\LL BE SUBHITTED IN
WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS
THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO SNSURE CONTINUITY
THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDu~SS FOR ~L~~ING OF
FIRE LANES.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
policy =06-1991
Date: 1'15/91
Revised:
Page 1 of 1
,~_~ 71
Approved - public Safety Director
,,,
t. J PAINTED 0;-'; RECYCL:::D PAPEH
C I TV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICY REGARDING PRE-PLAN
Prior to issuing the C.O., a pre-plan, site plan shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval. The fOllowing items shall be
shown on the plan.
1) Size II" x 17" (maximum)
2) Building footprint and building dimensions
3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes
4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or dead end
5) Fire hydrant locations
6) P.I.V. - Fire Department connection
7) Gas meter (shut-off), NSP (shut off)
8) Lock box location
9) Fire walls, if applicable
10) Roof vents, if applicable
11) Interior walls
12) Exterior doors
13)- Location of fire alarm panel
14) Sprinkler riser lecation
15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable
15) Ea=. Mat. storage, if applicable
17) underground storage tanks locations, if applicable
18) T'ype of construction \v"alls/roof
19) Standpipes
PLEASE NOTE: Plans with topographical information, contour lines,
easement lines, property lines, setbacks, right-of-way lines,
headings, and other related lines or markings, are not acceptable,
and will be rejected.
..- / / /
/' ,- . /
.~/ . v'. ~:,
~""":'./'--;"I" ~
..:./ ',.1 I ....,....----c-~
lo"""" .. '. _
A;~rcvei - PUO~lC Sare:y Di~ector
Chanhassen Fire I:'epartrnent
Fire Pre"lention
?olicy #07-1991
Da t e : 01/16/91
Revised: 02/18/94
Page 1 of 1
C I TV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
.'
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
General
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the st~eet or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background. size and location of numbers shall
be approved by one of the following Public Safety Director,
Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal.
Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where
no address numbers are posted.
Other Requirements - General
1. N\,;mbers shall be a contrasting color frorr{the ba~kground.
2. N\,;mbers shall not be In script
3. If a structure Is not visible from the stf~et. addlUona(numbers are required at th'e driveway entrance. Size
and locatlon must be approved. i..ll
4. N\,;mbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must stili
be met.
".
5. Acmlnlstratlve authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary.
Re:skSefltla.l Requirements (2 0( less dwelI1nq unit)
2. Building pemilts will nol be f1naledunless numbers are posted and approved by the Building ~artmenl
1. Minimum height shalt be 5 1/4".
Comrnet"ciaJ Requirements
..,,,:,,,
1. M!~lmum height shalt be 12".
2. Su~p Malls
a. Multi tenant building \~111 have minimum height requIrements of 6".
b. Address numbers shall ~e on the main entrance and on alt back doors.
".._".:
3. If address numbers are Iccated on a dlre'clary entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the
bl,;::dlngs main entrance.
~\
'~~
~,~~
Approved - public
Chanhassen Fire Depa::-tment
Fire Prevention
Policy #29-1992
Date: 06/15/92
Revised:
sa~ty Director page 1 of 1
t,J PRINTED o~; RECYCLE:) PAPER
C I TV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTErl DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
'\-VA TER SERVICE INSTALL.\ TION POLICY
FOR CO:\f\fERCIAL A..'ID L~DUSTRIAL B1J1LDINGS
1) The Inspections Division shall be responsible for issuance of permits. No permit
shall be issued until approval of plans have been obtained from the following:
a) Engineering Depamnent
b) Fire ~rarshJI
c) Minnesoca DepJrnnent of Health
d) Plumbing Inspeccor
2) Plumbing Li1speccors will do all inscallation inspections and witness che hydrostatic
and conductivity tests.
Inspection Jnd Test Requirements
a) All pipe sh:i!l be inspected before being co\'ered. Phone 937-1900.
ex:. 31. to s~hedule inspeCtions. A 24 hour notice is required.
b) Conducti\'ity test is required. The pipe shall be subjected to a minimum
350 3.Inp test for J period of not less than 5 minutes.
c) Hydrostatic test required. All pipe shall be subjected ro a hydrostatic
pressure of 150 psi for 2 hours. Allowable pressure drop shall not exceed
1 PSI.
d) Pipe shall not be run under buildings - NFPA. 24.8-3.1.
3) Cron approval or the hydro test. the plumbing inspector shall submit a copy of
the inspec:ion re;JL~rt to me utility superintendent. The inspection report shall note
\l.:hether the system is r~3.dy for main flush and drawing of water sample for the
bug test.
Inspections Division
W ac~r Service Installation
Poli-::y #34-1993
Date: 04/15/93
Revised: 4/17/96
Page 1 of 2
4) Water main flushing shall be witnessed by the utility superintendent.
a) Watermain t1ushing may be scheduled by contacting the utility
superintendent at 474-2086. A 48 hour notice is required.
b) The utility superintendent shall obtain a water sample for a bacteria test
after the main flush and deliver to a testing company. The contractor shall
be responsible for testing costs. Allow twO weeks for testing results to be
returned to the City.
c) Upon receiving approval of the water sample test. the utility
superintendent shall submit a copy to each plumbing inspector and turn
water on to the tested and approved sections of the piping.
5) An additional supervised flush and flow test will be required and witnessed by
the Fire Marshal for services supplying fire suppression systems. The flush and
now test shall be performed in accordance with 1991 edition of NFPA 13. Sec. 8-
2.1. Contact the Chanhassen Fire ylarshal at 937-1900. ext. 132.
6) \Vatermain installations shall comply with:
a) Minnesota Plumbing Code. Chapter 4715
b) Chanhassen Engineering Department. Waterrnain Specifications
c) National Fire Protection Association. Chapter 24.
..
7) Only authorized city employees are permined to operate city water control valves.
For water cum on or off contact the utility superintendent by phone 474-2086. A
24 hour notice is required.
v~
'--- \ ~C:P(/~ //)
Approved - Pubiic Sakry Direc:,-~r
Inspections Division
Water Service Installation
Policy #34-1993
Date: 04/15/93
Revised: 04/17 96
Page 2 of 2
C I TV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE ON A
COMBl1~A TION DOMESTIC/FIRE SPRl1~KLER SUPPL Y LINE
1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the
combination service water supply line.
2. 1 112" domestic off 6" line.
3. 2" domestic off 8" line.
4. 2 112 domesric off 10" line.
Option 1:
Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hyd~aulical1y that the
demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire spririkler warer below its
minimum gallonage required.
Option 2:
CombinJtion domestic and five line service shall have an electric solenoid valve
installed on the domestic side of the service. This valve shall be normally
powered open and close on loss of electric power or signal from the system
water flow indicator.
Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen
Mechanical Inspector.
c~,J7 ~j-
Chanhassen Fire Department
\-Vater Line Sizing
Policy #36-1994
Dare: 06/10/94
Revised:
Page 1 of 1
---
Approved - Public Safery Director
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA 55317
. I
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
1. Pennits are required for all sprinkler \vork.
2. A minimum of four sets of plans are required. Send, or drop off plans and specifications and
calculations to:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Dri\'e
Chanhassen. ~.rN 55317
3. Yard post indicators are required and must have ta.rnper protection.
4. All control values must be pro\'ided with tamper protection.
5. All sYSt<ffiS tests must be witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Appointments can be
made by calling the Fire Marshal at 937-1900, exl. 132, between 8:00 A:.I and 4:00 P:.l.
Monday' through Friday. Please try to arrange tests at least 24 hours in ad,'ance. All revisions
of25 he:ldS or more \\ill require a test.
6. Main drains & inspector test connections must be piped to the outside atmosphere.
7. Water Q1l\' not be introduced into sprinkler piping from the City main until the Fire Marshal
witnesses a flush test per i\FP.-\ 13-8-2.1.
8. The City of Chanhassea has a.lopted Appendix E (see 1305.6905 appendix chapter 38 of ,he
i\1BC).
Ch~l..f'lh2..ssen Fire Dep~lI1,,:er.t
Fire Preventior. Division
Policy #40-1995
Date: 01/12.95
Re\'ised: 03/12/97
Page 1 of2
9. All systems must be designed to NFPA-13, 1991 edition and Chapter 6 Standards. All attic
systems are to bc spaced Jt a maximum 130 square foot cover.1ge. 3/4" plastic piping \vill not
be allowed at any time in attic space.
10. All equipment installed in a fire protection sy'stem shall be UL listed or factory mutu.J.l
approved for fire protection service.
II. ~ Fir~ protection systems that are hydr.1lllically calculated sh.J.ll have a 5 psi safety [actor at
maximum system flow,
12. Acceptable water supplies for fire sprinkler systems are listed in NFP A-I3, 1991 ed., Chapter
7. Sv,:imming pools and ponds are not acceptable primary water supplies,
13. Pressure and gravity tanks shall be sized per the requirements contained in i\FPA-13 and 22.
Duration of the w.J.ter supply shall match the hazard cIassificationofthe occupancy.
14. Ine! ude spec sheets for fire sprin.l,:Ier heads - dry pipe/pre-action valving.
15. The definition of inspection is contained in ivfN Rule 7512.0100 Subpart 10, and stares that
inspection means:
1.
Conducting.1 final .1cceptance test.
Trip test of dry pipe, deluge or preaction valves.
A test that 3J1 authority having jurisdiction requires tC?'be conducted under the
supervision of a contractor. Only licensed fire p'rotection Contractors are
pemlirted to conduct these tests.
All other inspections including the inspectors test, main drain and othe, vah'es
are permitled under ivfN Rule 7512.040Q Subpan-2G, as mair:tenance activities
and do not require a license as a fire protection Contractor.
'I
.:...
..,
-~ .
-L
16. Per Section 904.3.2. and the 199-+ Unifoml Building Code, an approved audible sprin.l,:l.::r flow
alarm to alert the OCCUp.1nts shall be pro\'ided in the interior of the building in a normally
occupied location, (LocJtion must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal).
17. In existing systems, the foUo\\'ing shall apply:
I. If any changes in the hydr~lU!ically most demanding area, or an addition of 20 or
more hCJds. hyjratdic calculations will need to be pro\'ided.
'1 If an addition or change of 20 or more heads to a system, a test \\ill need to be
completed.
(iJ~#
f"." rl
~/V (/
~Apir"O\"Cd-Public S::lfety DirectL~r
ChJr:Iussen Fire Dep;lr1Il~ent
Fire Pre\'ention Di\'isiL~I".
Po!;.::y ;'::-W- I 995
Date: 01/12/95
Re\'lsed: 0.3/1297
Page: 2 of 2
C"A~~~~SEN
FIRE DEPT.
.~t.~ -=====
~~
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 97 . 7610 Laredo Drive · Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bus. Phone 934-9191 . Minnewashta Station NO.2. Phone 474-7094
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEP ARTl\'IENT POLICY
Labelin2: Fire Rated \-Valls
General
~umbers and/or letters shall be placed on all rated fire walls identifying their rating.
Said numbers and/or letters shall be not less than 5 inches high x 3 inches wide, with a
minimum v.. inch stroke and shall contrast with the background.
Requirements are for new ::md existing construction.
Occupancv Requirements
This policy is in effect for all occupancies except Group R-3.
Other Requirements
\.
Ident:,lcation shaU be marked 10 feet from every comer or change of direction and every
30 fee: thereafter. Identification shall be on both sides of interior waUs.
")
Identi::cation can be hidtlen f:'om plain view, i.e., above ceiling tiles or in attic spaces.
A.!I ot;..er locations must be aF?roved b::' one of the following: Fire ~[arshal, Fire
Inspe;:wr, Building Official. or Building Inspector.
E:--.:amt' Ie: I hr (1 hour tire \\o;:;il)
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Po I icy =41- 1 99"7
D2.te: 01/08/97
q?4~-~
Re\ised:
?:H:e 1 of I
.-\;;prc\"c...: .. ?"..':dic Safety Dircc:~r
..
.
CITY OF
. CHANHASSEN
90 CIty Center Drive, PO Box 147
CbmzhilSsen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
~izgineering Fax 612.937.9152
Publir S'zfe~)' It/x 612.9342524
m'b WWIU. ri. rbilnbassell.lIln.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II ,
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ~~
April 7, 1998
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Site Plan Review - Frontier Building (Bloomberg Company)
Upon review of the plans dated January 22, 1998, revised March 20, 1998,
prepared by Design 1, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING & DRAINAGE
Based on the plans, there are no site improvements outside the building remodeling
and landscaping improvements. The parking lot and utility improvements are
already in place.
UTILITIES
The building is served with city sewer and water. No additional connections are
proposed. The applicant should be advised that there may be additional sewer and
water hook up charges due at time of building permit issuance since it appears the
building's use is being intensified. The City charges a sewer and water hook up
charge for each sewer available charge (SAC) imposed by the Metropolitan
Environmental Service Commission. The 1998 sewer and water hook up rates are
$1,264.00 and $1,584.00, respectively,
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant and/or their assignee shall be responsible for any additional
sewer and water hook up charges associated with remodeling the building
based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan
Environmental Sewer Commission.
Jms
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
\'efs 1 \voI2'eng\dave\pc\frontier.spr.doc
'f City ofChanhassen. A growing rommunity with de/ill lakes, qllizli0! srbools, a rbarming downtown, tbriving businesses, and beautiful pmks. A gre/zt plarf to lil'f, work, tlIzd play
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
Date: 4/1/98
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner n
Subject: Request for site plan review the Frontier Building, a portion of the Entertainment complex, located
just east of the Chanhassen Cinema, Bloomberg Companies.
Planning Case:
98-7 Site Plan
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on March 23, 1998.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than
April 6, 1998. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance
is greatly appreciated.
1.
City Departments
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
. ~. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
8. Telephone Company
(US West or United)
9. Electric Company
(NSP or MN Valley)
10. Triax Cable System
2. Watershed District Engineer
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
3. Soil Conservation Service
12.
Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
13.
Other
6. Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
\ ..., { I
\',1" ':
\. I I,
fr', .,' \
\
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
Date: 4/1/98
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner IT
Subject: Request for site plan review the Frontier Building, a portion of the Entertainment complex, located
just east of the Chanhassen Cinema, Bloomberg Companies.
Planning Case:
98-7 Site Plan
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on March 23, 1998.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 15, 1998 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than
April 6~ 1998. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance
is greatly appreciated.
1.
City Departments
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
. e, Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
8. Telephone Company
(US West or United)
9. Electric Company
(NSP or MN Valley)
10. Triax Cable System
2. Watershed District Engineer
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
3. Soil Conservation Service
12.
Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
13.
Other
6. Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 15, 1998
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 City Center Drive
,ge
ad
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review to
Remodel a portion of
the Frontier Building
APPLICANT: Bloomberg Companies
LOCATION: East ofthe Chanhassen Cinema
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Bloomberg Companies, is requesting site plan review to remodel a portion of the
Frontier Building I which is part of the Entertainment complex, located just east of the
Chanhassen Cinema.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager ~~) 6/'lt
3TH STREET CENTER
;, B.C. BURDICK
84 EXCELSIOR BLVD
XCELSIOR, MN 55331
ATIONAL LODGING COMPANIES, INC
355 WEST 78TH STR.
DEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
LOOMBERG COMPANIES
t5 WEST 78TH STREET, PO BOX 730
HANHASSEN, MN 55317
HECHANHASSENBANK
)0 WEST 78TH STREET
HANHASSEN, MN 55317
rlANHASSEN BOWL
11 WEST 78TH STREET
;ANHASSEN, MN 55317
JUNTRY SUITES
11 WEST 78TH STREET
-JANHASSEN, MN 55317
J1ERICANNA COMMUNITY BANK
10 WEST 79TH STREET PO BOX 790
-JANHASSEN, MN 55317
iANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS
o WEST 78TH STR. #260
iANHASSEN, MN 55317
viERA CLUB
o WEST 78TH STREET
JANHASSEN, MN 55317
:IS ASSET MGMT INC
IANHASSEN RETAIL L TMD PARTNERSHIP
) BOX 386056
OOMINGTON, MN 55438-6056
TIRES PLUS
ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
600 WEST TRAVELERS TRAIL
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
TIRES PLUS GROUP
701 LADY BIRD LANE
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
APPLEBEE'S #95198
1025 WEST EVERETT ROAD
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
TOM-DON REAL ESTTE HOLDINGS
600 WEST TRAVELERS TRAIL
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
4. The proposed commercial development of 1.37 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quantity fee of$5,974.00. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City signing
the final plat.
5. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code.
6. Lot 1, Block I, Villages on the Ponds Third Addition, is subject to full park and trail fees per
city ordinance. One third of these fees will be paid prior to recording the final plat. The
remaining two thirds shall be paid at the time the building permit is granted.
7. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
8. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for
obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building
Department.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLOOMBERG COMPANIES IS REQUESTING SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL
A PORTION OF THE FRONTIER BUILDING. WHICH IS PART OF THE
j<:NTERT AINMENT COMPLEX. LOCATED JUST EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN
CINEMA.
Public Present:
Name Address
Herb Bloomberg
Clayton Johnson
Bob Davis
Bob Copeland
Amy Roberts
Selvig Huseth
Debbie Lacer
Britta Bloomberg
Maita Bloomberg Devine
Al Klingelhutz
Bloomberg Companies
Bloomberg Companies
Design One
Chanhassen Cinema
National Lodging
Chanhassen Dinner Theater
Frontier Building
Bloomberg Companies
Bloomberg Companies
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Peterson: Questions for staff. Sharmin, do you have a rendering of what we originally looked at
when we first started looking at the entertainment complex and what was then, I hate to say a
couple years now probably but can you give us a sense and do you have any renderings of that
that you can share?
AI-Jaff: This is what the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed.. . entertainment
complex was proposed. It is intended to have an interfaced brick facade. There are two tones
of... that would be used on the building. It doesn't spell out exactly which interfaced brick they
would be using. However these are the three tones that have... presented at the previous
meetings.
Peterson: The whole front was to have been one of those three style bricks essentially. We
didn't at the time, I don't recall any side elevations.
AI-Jaff: No. It was to be. ..It was a condition of approval.
Peterson: Other questions of staff. Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to
address the Planning Commission? And if so, please come forward. State your name and
address please.
Clayton Johnson: Clayton Johnson. I'm Vice President of Bloomberg Companies here in
Chanhassen and a little bit of introduction. We've been involved in the downtown development
and redevelopment ever since 1986 and I realize now that it's been a while since we've had a
project before you because I look up here and I don't recognize, Ladd's about the only one that I
recognize. But I think by way of explanation, our role in the downtown development has been
two fold. In many cases I would classify us as a passive, as an active partner. We've been a part
of the hotel project. We've been a part of Market Square. In all of those projects our role was
passive. In other words, we were a landowner. We were an investor and we had a certain
amount of influence on the architecture but by all means we did not control. The project that
you've referred to here and that Sharmin has presented was the one that you saw I think back in
1995 or 1996. We were not the applicant on that project. That project failed and the reason it
failed was a number of things but primarily economic. So when we took over in 1996, Bob
Copeland representing Copeland-Mithun and ourselves representing the Bloomberg Companies
sat down with staff and we said, it appears this project is doomed. Is there any way that we can
resurrect it and bring it back to you in stages or in phases. And as you recall that, a presentation
has been made on the cinema project and the cinema project did go forward and our only
involvement in the cinema project was one of very strong support. Obviously when we found
that we had somebody that was willing to come in and invest a million, a million and a half in
that comer and the way it looked, we thought anything was going to be an improvement and we
backed that with a $100,000.00 investment. We at the Bloomberg Companies wrote a check for
the construction of the parking lot. And the staff report refers to the support that's coming from
the HRA and I think I'd like to take that separately. I really think that's an issue that should go to
the Council and go to the HRA and obviously this project will not be built if we don't have their
support but I don't think it's a Planning Commission item. We're really excited. We've been
working at this, as you know, since 1995-1996. We have a plan and we have a plan we're very
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
excited about. It's a comprehensive plan. It deals with all, where this plan when it was
submitted only dealt with the front elevation and there was some comment about obviously there
had to be something done with the rest of it. Our plan is really comprehensive. It deals with all
three sides of the building. It deals with what has become, I don't know if you've been there
since the cinema's opened but all of a sudden it's a pedestrian walkway. People are going from
the front to the back so our plan addresses that. We've got sidewalks planned and additional
lighting planned and some interesting things on that alley. Our plan has two things that this plan
did not have. It has tenants. It has financing. And it's a reality. And with that I'd like to
introduce, since we're an active owner, we're going to own this property. Mr. Bloomberg has
been 100% involved in it's design. He's going to own this and his family is going to own it for
the next 50 years. They feel very strongly about the architecture that goes into this. So I'm going
to ask Bob Davis from Design One to come up and present the architectural side of this and
Bob's association with us is long term. He is, at one time was our employee. Is now an
independent architect on his own and he and Herb go back a long ways. In fact back to the days
of the historic renovation I believe of the St. James Hotel so I'm going to ask Bob to present the
plan and then I'll be available to ask questions. And I think during the public hearing, you're
going to hear from our neighbors. We've gone out and asked our neighbors what they think of
this plan and I'd be disappointed if a bunch of them aren't here tonight to support us. Okay?
Bob.
Bob Davis: Thanks Clayton. My name is Bob Davis. I'm an architect representing Bloomberg
Companies. As Clayton mentioned I go back with the company quite a ways. I first started
working with the Bloomberg Companies in 1965. This building was in existence at that time. In
fact it survived the tornado of 1965 which maybe, I don't know if anybody here remembers. I do.
I was in the old Post Office building. But we need to get onto business here. I think as I read the
staff report, Sharmin has said if you agree with this proposal there are some conditions. I'd like
to move right onto those conditions and discuss those and review what we think and what we
will change and what we think is perhaps inappropriate to change. So if I take a look at the
recommendations on page 9, and there are 11. The first three address landscaping, and I will
concede that the landscaping plan originally presented on your drawings was pretty brief and
done quite quickly. We have gone to a registered landscape architect and asked him to review the
comments, to review the plan and rework the landscaping. That is done. I have a plan here that
I'd like to show. If the camera can pick this up. This addresses and does change and is in
compliance with the first three items on the recommendation. Do we have anybody here with a
good landscape background? I'd sure like to take that up if anybody on the Planning
Commission is. Sharmin, could you comment on the changes? Look at these and.
Aanenson: NQ. It's too short of notice for us to give any comment at this time. We haven't seen
this since the 2nd and.
Bob Davis: Well we talked to Sharmin about it.
Aanenson: I'm the Planning Director and I would advise that at this point we think it's too short
of notice to try to comment on that without, just seeing it on the spot.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Peterson: Why don't we just go through the rest of your comments.
Bob Davis: Okay. Well I want to go back to that a minute though. I concede that we are
changing the landscape to comply with the first three items on the recommendation.
Peterson: So noted.
Bob Davis: Number 4 speaks of the rooftop equipment. There is none. There will be none.
This is a curved roof behind the facade. Equipment will be, if it's placed on the ground, will be
screened in a mechanical area. So in my mind, item 4 is not an issue. We don't intend to have
any rooftop equipment. Item 5 I think, we certainly intend to comply with the ordinance. I'd like
to bring up one item on the sign relating to number 6. And specifically lowering the sign. Fred,
you have a couple of photographs. I'd like to place before you some photographs of the High
Timber Lodge signs and can we pick this up on, this one here. As I mentioned, I've worked with
Herb Bloomberg since 1965 and this plan is an interpretation of his design ideas that go back to
the origination of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater, the Frontier Lumber Company, and those
original buildings which had the frontier character. Specifically the shingle roofs. And this is,
do I need to pass these around so you can see this a little better?
Peterson: It's coming in clear on the TV here so.
Bob Davis: Okay. So you can see this signage and how it relates to the sign. Let me put up
another drawing here so you can get an idea, little better of what we are proposing on the
building. The south elevation that's been referred to here. The roof is actually above the signs.
The existing roof structure. There's a dotted curved line here and that is the roof.
Peterson: The height above street level is approximately, the sign? I'm comparing the Timber
Lodge.
Bob Davis: Okay, so we're, I don't want to guess at this. 20 feet.
Peterson: Significantly higher than, you've comparing it to a Timber, the Timber sign which
would be significantly less in overall height than what you're offering here, correct? Just a
couple questions.
Bob Davis: I think we should look at the two this way and look at the proportion. There's been
some discussion about the proportion of these. Can we do it this way?
Peterson: Well again, the question is, would the signs on this be 10 feet, 20 feet higher than the
one on the south?
Bob Davis: 20 feet total height. Not very much higher. Probably 4 feet higher. Although I
think rather than to guess, we should really have specific numbers and I think we can get a scale
out of a briefcase.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Peterson: It's not that important ofa question. I'm just trying to get scope and scale of what
you're trying to do.
Bob Davis: Okay. Okay, I believe this is an appropriate adaptation of the back elevation
reflecting what has been done on the High Timber Lodge, and we're taking that as a standard.
These signs do exist across the front ofthe Frontier building as well. If we proceed on with these
items, number 7 is not an issue with us. I think it's a documentation that has to be met and it's
not, the applicant does not have any objection to number 7. Number 8 talks again about rooftop
equipment and trash enclosures. There will be no rooftop equipment. Trash enclosures will be
designed and will comply when the tenants are specifically in hand and we know whether the
requirement is a simple little container or big dumpster and obviously it's an ordinance that has
to be complied with. The applicant certainly has every intention of complying with the screening
of trash enclosures as to whatever size they will be. Item 9 is documenting some ordinances
again which have to be met. I don't think it's an issue we need to talk about. We certainly will
comply. Item 10 has three items. It speaks of the corrugated metal, adding a color canopy or
adding a color canopy and raising the brick on the building. Ifwe look at the elevation here on
the back, this is an extension of the rest of the architecture and design of the Dinner Theater, the
furniture store, the front of the lumber building of using wood shingles and mansard shapes and
I'mJust saying to you, I don't believe we should add a canopy. I don't think it's appropriate.
There isn't canopies on the front. We can go across the street and find some but why should we
add a few canopies to this building? I think that whole concept should be dismissed and we say
we look at these as the same material and the same form and a pitched roof shingles, same color.
There was a note somewhere here adding color to this side. I think with the landscaping, the
materials, the variation of color, the teal doors, the bronze windows, I think there certainly is
color here. Raising the brick on this building, there was some note about using brick on some of
these facades. The brick is shown to the window height. I think that's appropriate. I, as an
architect stand before you and say this is my choice. This is Herb Bloomberg's interpretation of
continuing 45 years of building in this community. The metal siding on the side, and this was
discussed with the planning department, and is elaborated here. Can we get a close up of these
three murals on the side of the building? Can you see that on your screens or do you want this up
in front of you? Why don't you do that. Three dimensional figures on those murals... I should
remind you that this elevation is an alley. This is not fronting the parking lot. This is not
fronting a street. Yes, I think the applicant chooses to propose this solution. I think it's a good
solution. As I say, this is an alley. This is not fronting a parking lot or the front street. So we're
asking to drop number 10 from your items of recommendation. The other items, with the
exception oflowering the sign on item 6, I think we're in concurrence and I'd like you to
consider this proposal this evening as being a good addition to a building that needs a new life.
Clayton, is there anything that I've missed in your understanding of what the owner.
Clayton Johnson: No. Only that again I would urge you to take action tonight rather than table
the issue. This is a project we've been working on for such a long period of time that we finally
get to the point where the financing's in place and the tenants are anxious to occupy on or about
August 1 and very honestly we're on a time schedule that has to move along and we still have to
go through Council and HRA.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant?
Joyce: Can you convince me of the economic hardship of changing the corrugated metal. . .
What are we talking about?
Clayton Johnson: Well I don't look at it as an economic hardship. We look upon it as, we've
looked at the possibility of putting siding on there. We think siding on that great big wall is ugly.
Joyce: So in essence you want the corrugated metal?
Clayton Johnson: We want it.
Joyce: That's a look you want?
Clayton Johnson: And painted, repainted and put the murals on there which will add some
interest and the only other solution that's been recommended is to side it and very honestly, Mr.
Bloomberg does not want to put siding on that big massive wall and Bob, I don't know do you.
Bob Davis: Well it is a structural wall too. That is the wall. It's not your traditional metal
building type of siding that you could take off and replace something else. That is a structural
wall. It's heavy gauge steel. It's put together with impact bolts. It is the wall.
Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
Peterson: Go ahead.
Brooks: I don't know the history of this building. Can you give me a little background? It was
originally a lumber building?
Bob Davis: It was a lumber yard. It was built in 1965. I started working for Mr. Bloomberg in
1965, January, and that building was being built then. Survived the tornado. It was a lumber
building and a hardware store.
Brooks: What I see here are so different from what's there now. Why aren't you just razing the
building and then building something new?
Clayton Johnson: Let me explain the HRA's participation in all of the downtown projects have
always been limited to a pay as you go plan. In other words, the HRA has never come to us and
said here's the, the building currently is valued at $800,000.00. The HRA has never come to us
and said, tear that down and start over. They've always said, come to us with a plan that you
provide the financing. We will be putting about $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 into the building.
Right now the building pays taxes of $25,000.00. When we're done it pays $75,000.00. Okay.
It's not economically feasible without any kind of assistance to redevelop that building and tear it
down, and I describe it, Bob described it as a lumber yard. It's an airplane hangar. It's an
airplane hangar. It's an ice arena. These buildings, these baleen buildings are what was used to
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
build ice arenas all over the midwest. It's an airplane hangar. That whole facade is a curtain
wall. And by the way in the staff report they refer to the refurbishing of the material. No. That
whole wall comes out. That's all new material. All natural materials of wood, and brick and
stone. And I've got to tell you, you know I want to explain the passive versus active role. When
we were a passive investor in this project that you saw 3 years ago, believe when I go back and
look at that, and I look at the notation on the top, and it refers to plastic cornice. I would like you
to go with me when I tell Mr. Bloomberg we're going to put vinyl siding on one of his buildings.
It just would never fly. He is, in all of his architecture and all of his design, it's natural materials.
It's stone, it's wood, it's glass and when he built my house he wouldn't even put vinyl
underneath my washing machine. He put stone so.
Peterson: This item is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the same and a second
please?
Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address.. . name and address please.
Bob Copeland: My name is Bob Copeland. I am one of the owners of the Chanhassen Cinema
and I'd like to give you our thoughts on this project. First of all, we want to urge you to approve
this project and we'd like you to approve it this evening. We think it's a good design. We like
the design and we think it's just a tremendous improvement over what is there now. We also
want to suggest to you that you not compare this design that you have now to what was approved
2 Y2 years ago. What was approved 2 Y2 years ago is just not relevant anymore and it's just not an
option. As far as the west side of the building goes, the corrugated metal that is in the alley
between our two pieces of property, we think it's just fine. We're happy with that corrugated
metal there and we don't see a need to do anything with it. Also I'd like to let you know that I,
the bowling alley people, the owners of the bowling alley, wanted to come to the meeting this
evening. They weren't able to come. They asked me to pass along to you that they concur with
what I'm telling you and that they want to urge you to approve this this evening. Basically, I
think there are two options that you have before you. One is to disapprove this and the building
will stay a warehouse. It will be a rundown warehouse and there will be plywood over the
windows and the facility that you see there will be there indefinitely as a warehouse. The other
option is to approve this facade as proposed to you this evening and we'll have, what will appear
to be a new building here. So I would also urge you to not table this this evening. It needs to be
dealt with and we might as well deal with it starting tonight. So if you have no questions, thank
you.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Amy Roberts: My name Amy Roberts. I come here representing National Lodging. We're the
owning entity in Country Suites and I've never done this. I'm very nervouS. Bear with me. I
think that everybody here wants to improve what the current situation is with that building and
that's really all that needs to be done. We cannot let the situation go the way it is anymore.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Everybody driving on TH 5 sees how bad it is. It's one of the first reflections ofChanhassen that
you see. And something has to be done. There are many bits and pieces about this that I would
see differently done but in the end we need to do something. And another point about this is that
Herb Bloomberg did have a great deal to do with the design of County Suites at the time and with
the Timber Lounge. And sometimes it doesn't always look that good or sound that good, but in
the end when it comes together, it looks like the Timber Lounge. And I think we need to have a
little faith. Maybe if you're really, really opposed to some things like the corrugated metal, that
there's something that can be done down the road but I don't want this project not done over
some of these issues. Thank you.
Peterson: Anybody else?
Selvig Huseth: My name is Selvig Huseth and I'm the Managing Director at the Chanhassen
Dinner Theaters and have been an employee there for over 20 years and I would just like to say
that the ambiance and the feeling that you get when you walk into the Dinner Theater and the
hundreds of comments that we get every month from people personally and in letters, how warm
the atmosphere and enjoyment that they have at the Dinner Theater is because of the vision and
architecture that Mr. Bloomberg has designed. And we don't make a change in the Dinner
Theater, even though he's not our owner anymore, without conferring with him about it. We
don't change the carpet without asking his opinion on it because we totally trust his design ability
and his architecture vision and I think that these ideas that are being proposed extend his whole
idea of the whole complex and I totally trust what he has in his head and it's like she said. You
know you might not understand when he's explaining. I don't because I'm not an architect.
When he's explaining it directly to me but it always ends up looking fantastic. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Debbie Lacer: Hello. My name is Debbie Lacer and I'm one of the tenants in the Frontier
Building. I've been there for 8 years. I guess I'd like to say a lot of what Selvig just said in that I
think the ambiance over there is very warm and friendly. I know I've stayed there with my
company, although there have been many other places that would probably be more convenience
in terms of being high tech and easier to load and more storage and whatever, but the ambiance
there is a wonderful small town feeling and I think that building brings that environment to our
town and I think it's very important that we preserve some of that for Chanhassen. We're
growing very fast here. I've been a resident in town for II years so I've literally seen the whole
of downtown main street developed in that period of time and yet the Frontier building reminds
me of some of the historical relevance of this city and I think it's very important that we keep that
here. I also know from my business, I do a lot of traveling around the midwest, that we are
literally on the map because of the Dinner Theater. I meet hundreds of customers when I'm out
and about throughout the Midwest and it has continually surprised me how many people have
visited our town because of that theater. And I think because of that I've come to really admire
the Bloombergs and what they have brought to our city and I think it's very important, especially
since Herb is able to continue to design for our buildings here, that we recognize that talent and
we accept and honor the fact that he has done this for many, many years. He is an expert at it.
he's built some lovely things for us here and I think it's really important that we maintain the
34
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
historical value that he brings to our city. I think to continue this building in the manner that he
started it and trust the fact that he will finish it tastefully, is what we should look at because that's
just as important as whether it's brick in our eyes or someone else's. He really contributes a lot.
Thank you.
Britta Bloomberg: My name is Britta Bloomberg. I'm a shareholder in Bloomberg Companies.
Herb is my father. This has been our home for over 40 years. This has been the place that we've
made our lives and have really set down our roots. I want to just make a couple observations
about my father's design career. Here in Minnesota he has a statewide reputation for his fine
quality of his design, the workmanship, and nationwide he's had a reputation, in particular
through the baleen steel buildings of which the Frontier building is. That was a baleen steel
constructed building for the lumber yard and hardware store. It also was constructed to be the
headquarters of Bloomberg Companies. That's where we had our company offices for many,
many years before we moved them to a smaller location. But I think that it's important to really
bring some, put some confidence in the quality of the design that has come forward in this.
Some of dad's other work that has really a particularly notable reputation in this area, the Old
Log Theater, and then Hazeltine National Golf Club, the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. I would
really urge you to approve this plan. And I also want to add that one of the reasons that I thought
it was important that I come tonight is to let you know that we're in this for the long haul. My
father is at a point in his career where he's ready to see us kids become a lot more involved and
we really see this as our future. Bloomberg Companies is here to stay and we feel that it's really
important to be able to move forward with the plans that are being made right now for how we
can continue to conduct our business here in Chanhassen. I think my dad's brought incredible
vision to this town over the last 40 some years and I would really urge you to approve this plan.
Peterson: Thank you.
Maita Bloomberg Devine: Hi. My name is Maita Bloomberg Devine and I'm also one of Herb's
daughters as well as a shareholder in Bloomberg Companies and I look at this plan and I just see
a continuation of the things that he has done for the Dinner Theater and the Frontier building.
Bringing the building from the front around to the back and continuing that so it has a really nice
look to the building. People can drive into the back from the other side of town, not from the
main street and be invited into the town. I always admired my father's creativity and his design
and over the years I've been in a lot of his homes, as well as his larger buildings that he has built
and have always been amazed at the people coming to me and saying, being excited about
discovering things in his building and being amazed that what has worked for him, they would
have never thought ofit. I think after all the years that he has done this in this city, that we need
to have a little. confidence that he does have that vision and that he can see it through. I think he
sees things that a lot of us don't. I think the plan is fine as is. I was really pleased with it. I
think it's really exciting. I think it would be a wonderful addition to this city. Like it was said
earlier, it was built as a hardware and lumber building and it's taking that structure and
transforming it into something that's very appealing to the public and it's going to work for
retailers and it's going to make a nice addition to this city so I really hope that you will look at
this and think it's a good idea and good plan and move forward. Thank you.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the commission?
Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz, long time member of the city ofChanhassen. I can
remember when Herb moved out here. The village had a population, I've got the sign home in
my garage, of 120 people. That was the village and that included the township and it took an
awful lot of courage for a man to come out and put a complex up like he did here in Chanhassen
and expect to make it work like he did. It really is a centerpiece of a suburban area as far as the
Dinner Theater is concerned. When I was Mayor and I used to go to some of the Mayor's
functions down at the city, people asked where I was from. I said I was from Chanhassen. Oh
that's where the Dinner Theater is and I think Herb has been doing a real good job for
Chanhassen and I can see that some of the things that you see on paper here probably don't look
quite right to you now but I can assure you that if Herb has designed this thing, it will look good
after a while. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the
public hearing.
Brooks moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. I assume that nobody wants to be the first one to comment on this
one. But Ladd, if I could ask maybe for your comments. A historical perspective might add...
Conrad: Yeah, yeah. AI's been here longer than I have so. This is a tough one. In a lot of cases
I want to just beg the question, get out of it. The TIF money confuses me a little bit. I don't
understand that. It's not our job but it does, it does confuse me a bit. I have one comment and
you approached our meeting on a very negative slant tonight because I think obviously you and
staff aren't getting along. You didn't address us. It's them. So whether you had good points or
not, I couldn't tell. You were challenging their recommendations. I can't vote on this tonight
because I think you might have some good ideas but you didn't tell me why. You went straight
..tp the negatives and you didn't come in and say this is why we're doing this. This is how it fits.
This is what our intent is. You went straight to the negatives so I can't react tonight. I think
there's some things that you can work on with staff. There's some things that you have some
definite differences on. There's some things that I can bend on a little bit. I think you have some
points but you didn't make those points other than, you didn't make them to make me feel that I
could make a rationale decision for the community of Chanhassen. You know we obviously
respect Herb. We obviously respect the Dinner Theater. It's a cornerstone of the community.
You know it really is. I don't even need to underline that yet tonight's presentation was not what
I can say I can make a decision on. So you know, and some of these are real tough to figure out.
Once you get into architectural things, it's really tough. I hate us getting involved in that. I really
do because we're just individuals that are lay people but you're forcing us to get into that and
boy, we make mistakes and to trust us is a tough one for a Planning Commission to do. So I'm
going to shut up and basically say, I think you've got to come back. I think you've got to come
back with the reasons why we should go with your plan and at interim I'd prefer that you try to
iron out a couple of these things. For instance, for instance the alley way. I don't know what it's
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
used for. I don't know if there's going to be any pedestrians on there. We've talked, I've been
here for a while so I know some of the things we've talked about. I don't know if we've got
traffic going in or out. I don't know if that baby should be closed up or not. If it's closed up, if
there's no, if it's just for vagrants out there, then I don't need pictures on the walls back there.
But on the other hand, if it's going to be, if we're going to make this an active retail center, I
expect something to happen. I don't know what your vision is and you didn't share it tonight so
it's, I don't even want to get into the details because I can't make a good decision. I think we
should get out of this and have the applicant come back and make a positive presentation in two
weeks.
Peterson: Kevin.
Joyce: Ditto. That's it. I agree with everything he said.
Peterson: LuAnn.
Sidney: Yeah I agree. I guess I felt pressured to want to like this, the architecture and the ideas
that were put forth. I guess I need to be sold on the project like Ladd said, and many of the
poirtts that are in the staff report I think are extremely valid. We're dealing with the design now
that is so much different than the one that was presented 2 Y2 years ago I guess and I actually like
the one that was the original site plan a lot better than what was presented here tonight. So I
guess like Ladd, I don't really want to go on and on and on except that Ijust can't see this
moving forward to Council.
Peterson: Matt.
Burton: I agree with all the comments so far. I think that we have a very good staff here and...
respect their opinions and I think everybody up here does and I think it's important for the
applicant to work with the staff and come back with a better proposal than this. Or at least
address more of the issues that are out there. I don't like leaving open and saying that down the
road something may happen. I want to address as much as we can right now and I don't we can
do that with what's been presented to us. And I understand that the neighboring tenants want
something going on there. I think we all do. But I think we want to go with more definition than
we have now so I agree with my fellow council members that I would table this matter.
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said. There have been substantial changes since the initial
approval and I think that's a big issue for all us. But also we've got to look at the big picture.
We have an entertainment complex. So I would like to know specifically where does the
boardwalk go? How is that going to continue? What plans are there for the alley way, like Ladd
said? Are there going to be pedestrians going through there? We have to look at that. What's
going to happen to the remaining buildings down there? I mean I realize that that's not your
issue specifically but these are some questions that I need to have answered before I would feel
comfortable moving forward with any kind of approval. I don't doubt the ability of Mr.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Bloomberg to do a plan that's going to be wonderful but I think that we're coming from two
different points right now with... what was previously approved and what the vision is today and
I think we need to find some common ground and we're not there yet.
Peterson: Thank you. Allyson.
Brooks: I agree with all of the comments. I do strongly feel something absolutely has to be done
with that Frontier building. It is not a very pleasant, visual piece on the landscape. I think we all
want something...done. I don't think anybody's against that whatsoever. I do agree with the
presentation discussion very strongly. I think it's great that Herb Bloomberg has done these
things for the community but I would really like the next presentation to focus on the issue. The
building, because I was losing track of why we're here. The issue is fixing the building, which is
something I think we all wanL.to happen. You know as long as we're giving testimonials, I
think our planning staff is very good and has done a lot for the vision of Chanhassen... But I
think you have some tenants that you want to make by August? I think coming back in two
weeks shouldn't stop that deadline. It's just a matter of coming together and.. .if it can happen.
Peterson: Thank you. I look at the entertainment complex and as it was originally envisioned
and I thoroughly found that to really add a uniqueness and character to the city that I liked a lot.
And we have started that entertainment complex by setting a standard with the theater. The
cinema I should say, and I really see this building tying more closely to the cinema and farther
west than I do tying it to the Dinner Theater that some people have spoke of this evening. Tying
it to more of the rustic look and that so I really would, essentially what I'm rambling on here
saying is, I really see this tying in much more closely to what the cinema is and what the rest of
the entertainment complex is intended to be. And I know there's economics involved in that and
sometimes you have to wait for things to happen but I think the intent and our approval back then
is, that I feel as strongly today as... I don't see this fitting the design itself with the rest of the
entertainment complex that I envision down the road. With that in mind, a motion please.
Conrad: Your signal Mr. Chairman is that you saw, and my signal was I didn't get the
applicant's good pitch. Your signal was, you saw it and you didn't care for it. I'm not interested
in extending out the applicant's, I don't take any great pleasure in wasting two weeks of their
time. Well, I'll float the motion. I think before I make it, if you don't like this, the intent for me
to table this motion, I've got to tell you that it's to get a better presentation so I can understand
the different elements and what they're trying to do. That's my problem. I don't think you
should vote for my motion if you read it, you see it, you understand it, don't delay them.
Brooks: But within the two week period there's some things.
Conrad: Something could happen but they don't agree with staff. There's definitely, that's real
clear. And we're, without that agreement, you know we're sort of in chaos here. We have a
tough time with this one so again I'm going to make the motion. I can't call on your Clayton.
But I would make the motion, and Mr. Chairman we should have some discussion after this. I
would make the motion to table this item for two weeks to give the applicant time to review a
few of the subjects with the ones that are palatable with the city staff, and reduce the number of
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
variances or the number of issues outstanding but to come back in that two week period and give
us a proactive approach as to why we should be approving the building as presented. That'd be
my motion and my rationale.
Peterson: Is there a second to that motion?
Brooks: 1'd second it.
Peterson: Discussion.
Conrad: Then don't vote for it if you've got a clear shot because then that's just not fair to the
applicant.
Peterson: Whenever we table something, I think it's very important that we send the applicant
away with the perspective of what we're looking for in return. Ladd has articulated certainly one
perspective. I have tried to articulate that architecturally I don't feel as though it fits. I don't
know whether the rest of the commissioners have a sense of where you're at in that continuum or
you have a different vision and I think it's important for the applicant that you offer those this
evening. That whether we do that after the motion or while we're in this discussion...
Conrad: My motion should fail if you really want to provide some design recommendations to
the applicant tonight. Anyway.
Peterson: ... perspective.
Joyce: I think Ladd hit it right on the head. That's why we want to discuss that for because I
think cooler heads will prevail. I think in two weeks we can come together, I really believe this,
and work this out.
Peterson: How do you feel about the difference in architectural style to what the entertainment
complex.
Joyce: This architectural style, I think a lot of it has to do with taste. I think it's a 1960's style,
because that's what the theater, when it was built. And you can pick that away if you want. I
mean some people like the 1960's style. That's kind of what their stuffwas so in one sense,
that's what we've living with right now. That's the building. But on the other side, what I like
about what Ladd said is, we have this corrugated wall. How is that going to function inside the
development? You didn't tell me that. All you said is we want to keep the corrugated wall and
that was that. So you know, is it an alley? Isn't it an alley? Do you want to shut that off? Fine.
I mean if you sat down and thought this through, I mean and give us some positive feedback on
what we're going to do there, I'd feel a lot better onjust voting on it. My discussion is, I think
two weeks of cooling off period and being creative and thinking this through is a lot better than
just making a decision, a rash decision right now.
Peterson: Design wise you're saying you're open?
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
Joyce: I don't think, yeah I am open to the design. I'm not going to get into an argument over
taste once again. I don't know how much authority we have to force certain aspects of the design
down. I don't understand the TIF financing either or the HRA involvement. This isn't a PUD.
I'd almost like to have two weeks just to digest this myself so I can figure out, I'm a little
confused on that. How much authority we have to say...it's their building. Ifit was a PUD, I'd
say no. Ifit was a PUD, I'd say I'd like to change this but it isn't.
Peterson: LuAnn, your comments?
Sidney: Well I think I fall in the area where you know I would like a design change and you
know hearing Craig speak I agree with him in that I see this tying more into the cinema complex,
that's in the cinema style. Not necessarily with the Dinner Theater style. And I'm trying to
think, because you want to use the same materials as what's in the Chanhassen Dinner Theater
area but I guess I have a problem with some of the design elements like big canopies reminds me
of Me nards in Fridley when I look at that and I'd like to see something different and I think you
can modify that to make it a little bit more appealing. So you know there are things I think that
you know if you're willing to give and take and work with staff, I think the application could
work. But at this point I'm not comfortable with the design maybe as much as Ladd.
Peterson: I won't go all the way around. Any other comments regarding that?
Brooks: I have one.
Peterson: Please.
Brooks: Well I think we have to remember that we're remodeling a building and we're not
ripping down a building. A question about razing versus remodeling and because we're
remodeling I fall on the side of Ladd. Whoa. And there's only so much you can do. I mean
anything is better than what we've got. I mean if this situation where Milo, the magic architect
was coming in to give us something absolutely fabulous that he always did, I mean and it's over
by the Dinner Theater and you know...I think well at least it's blending in with that. Ifwe do
something way too funky and we try to push them to do something funky and entertainment like,
well then we have style conflicts with the rest of the buildings that are there. The other thing we
talked about, Country Suites and Timber Lodge, and I don't find them an architectural beacon. I
mean they're traditional, bland, suburban architecture. So I think... which is remodeling the
building. . . better.
Blackowiak: I don't like to settle. I mean I think we should go for the best possible design that
we can get on this site. And now let's not just say well let' s just settle for this because it's a
remodel. You can do wonderful remodels. I know you can. I want to see the big picture. I want
to see how it's going to fit in. I really think we need to look, I want to see where the boardwalk's
going. I would like to see a rendering that might show the Chanhassen Cinema next to the
proposed remodel of the Frontier. I mean how is it going to fit together? I need to know that
before I can approve it. I want to know what's going to happen to the other buildings, and again I
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998
said it's not your concern what's happening to those other buildings but if you're doing.. .and
you've got these four little buildings down on the right there on the southeast comer, they're
. going to have to address that issue as well because if you're trying to make it pedestrian friendly,
nice looking area, we've got some more work to do. Ijust am not comfortable but I don't want
to settle. Again, it's remodel. That's fine but we can make it a nice one. I think we should strive
to do that.
Burton: I agree with the other comments. I don't like it the way it is now. I think it looks old
and dated and I don't think it really fits in at all. I don't think it's right to use the Dinner Theater
side as a comparison. First of all this is much higher structures than those are because it's on the
back side of the hill. And it doesn't match with the neighboring neighbors. I'm not an architect.
I know I don't like what I see. I think to get some more time here and consider the staffs
comments and meet with the staff, I think you can come back in short order a different design
and a different plan, or at least be able to explain why.. .and address the other concerns before
tonight.
Peterson: We have a motion, we have a second and I think we have plenty of direction.
Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
Bloomberg Companies for a Site Plan Review for remodeling of the Frontier Building. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Herb Bloomberg: ., .they had me build their home on the lake.. .Hazeltine possibility. I'm not
much of a golfer at all hardly but Todd Heffelfinger.. .built a nice home for him and he told me
.,. invited me to design the build.. . and they knew that I had no experience. So we went ahead
and did it. The interesting thing was, and the case I think did I mention it was Don.. .party and he
said I wish I had a dollar for everybody who said they wanted to buy my house. In the meantime
the same thing happened to Todd and Lucy Heffelfinger... They had me build their home
overlooking the lake. About this time, about 1976 I was surprised by a magazine that came, this
happens to be Business Week. .. . magazine and there was my face. The Baleen Company had
decided to do an advertising campaign, and this was in '76 when the Dinner Theater was kind of
on shaky ground. We were really worried.. .hoping to survive and we did survive. ... pop up in
Business Week, Sports Illustrated, Time magazine and so forth. Maybe more that I don't even
know about. And what it said, and the comment was a picture of the Chanhassen Dinner
Theater. But the headline was, ...a Baleen builder builds trust. And that was the nicest
compliment I ever had in my life. And some times it takes a little trust. I wish you could re-open
your meeting ,and pass this for me tonight. What could you lose? Would you have that trust with
me? I've only. worked here for 42 years. I've never had any kind of a hint of a lawsuit or a
problem with any customer. From coast to coast. Then if! say my hometown now that I've been
in for 42 years wouldn't trust me enough to finish my own building? I can't believe that. Maybe
I'll have to accept it. But I think you'd be better, you'd feel a lot better if you passed that tonight.
I think you'd brag about it later on and I know I won't disappoint you. Thanks.
Peterson: Thank you.
41
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 6,1998
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Matt Burton, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison
Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator
BLOOMBERG COMPANIES REQUESTING SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL A
PORTION OF THE FRONTIER BUILDING. WHICH IS PART OF THE
ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX. LOCATED JUST EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN
CINEMA.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nancy Mancino
Vemelle Clayton
Robert Davis
Fred M. Oelschlager
Clayton T. Johnson
6620 Galpin A venue
422 Santa Fe Circle
9973 Valley View
7410 Chanhassen Road
1808 Hillside Lane
Sharmin AI-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Other comments to staff? You talked about architecturally you said that... the
. recommendations are relatively vague in the conditions. Can you expand upon it a little bit more
as far as what you were looking for when you talked about the roof...is that really it or how do
you see the building? You define it that significant and architectural differences
between... where are you at in that recommendation?
AI-Jaff: Well right now the roof edge proposed it has one large roof with no breaks in it
whatsoever. It lacks in architectural interest. We don't want to design the building for the
applicant but we're making suggestions and one of them would be for instance utilizing dormers.
That would give the roof line some interest. The same is used on Country Suites. You can also
find something similar on the Dinner Theater so those would be just suggestions. Also with the
brick. Right now you have veneer brick along the bottom of the building only. That could be
extended up higher. You can see that along the Frontier building facing West 78th. That would
give additional architectural interest to the building. Some type of siding has to take place along
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
the alley. Again, that hasn't changed. It's still corrugated metal and staff does not believe that
this is, what the applicant is proposing, we don't believe is an acceptable solution. Our
conditions of approval basically addresses the roof as well as the addition of some type of siding.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?
Conrad: Sure. .. . and this probably doesn't have anything to do with the application right now
but do we have, is there a bigger vision for that back side area of the Dinner Theater? You know
we've got a neat parking lot there now and the back side of the Dinner Theater is really pretty
ugly and there seems to be, it seems to be an area that has some potential. It could be an
entertainment area. There could be more than what we're just talking about right now but do we
have a vision for that? It just looks outstanding. It looks like it's a cul-de-sac with all sorts of
potential. To block off really the back side of the Dinner Theater, which is a functional area.
Which is a working area, but in front of that, towards the parking lot, is anything happening?
Aanenson: I can address that in a couple of ways. One, I think they've attempted to screen, such
as the outdoor storage for Maytag and the dumpster so that's going to help to clean up some of
the back but as you go further down, as you pointed out, one of the things that we are looking at
now, which you may not be aware of. We undertook a parking study looking at the mix of uses
and the potential for additional development back behind the Dinner Theater which would help
screen and we want to still enhance the back of that. The applicants may want to talk to what
they're looking at as far as further enhancing that property specifically but they are working to
screen and enclose some of those storage areas and again put in additional development on the
back of that area.
Conrad: And it's an aside. It really has nothing to do with what we're talking about but it just
looked like great potential. We have an entertainment area back there and you can put,
theoretically we can put something up to screen the Dinner Theater and the working parts of that,
yet making it something really quite attractive in that area. Anyway, that's an aside. The vision
for the alley. What's our vision? You know the hotel side of it's not a pretty thing either so what
are we doing? Are we cleaning up one side, the corrugated side versus the other side or what are
we going to end up with?
AI-Jaff: The alley will be paved. The sidewalk.
Conrad: The gravel will go, okay.
AI-Jaff: That will go. It is intended to be pedestrian friendly. Heavily traveled.
Conrad: And the wall, on the inside of that whatever, what's happening to that wall? It is a
pretty ugly wall there so. On the Country Suites side.
AI-Jaff: On Country Suites?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
Conrad: Yeah. There's an office and there's a pretty ugly wall there so we're making
recommendations to the Dinner Theater side but I'm just curious what we're doing to the other.
I'm trying to set a standard you know as I, we take a look and making them upgrade it. This one
side is bad and the other side is good, you know what have we accomplished?
AI-Jaff: When Timber Lounge went in the, we completed the wall was stucco.
Conrad: You took it back about 20 feet or so.
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Conrad: And the rest of the wall between that and the entertainment center is pretty bleak. So
I'm just, my question is, what's happening to that? Is it staying that way? Is that the way it is is
my question?
AI-Jaff: We're talking about the wooded, the area...
Conrad: It looks like concrete block and I'm not sure ifI've got a good... Well the cinema has
some really nice concrete to the surface of it but between that and the front of.
AI-Jaff: That will be restored as part of the cinema.
Conrad: It will be?
AI-Jaff: It will be restored, yeah.
Conrad: Okay. So our vision is a walking alley?
Aanenson: Right. That's why we put the lights in there so people can park in the front. Go to
the Timber Lounge and we wanted to make it inviting...
Conrad: .. .okay. And that's still our vision?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: That's what we want to do? Okay.
Aanenson: That was our concern about this side to making sure we still have that continuity and
I think that kind of goes back to Alison's question that she had last week and how does this tie
into the vision and I'm not sure that was articulated last time. How this works into the vision we
had before of keeping that.
Conrad: Okay. Next question. Do we care about TIF?
Aanenson: No.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
Conrad: We don't.
Aanenson: I think you should know that it's there but that's ultimately for the CounciL..
Conrad: We don't care if they're got money.
Aanenson: That's always been the planning, Council. Information to know but it's really the
Council's decision ultimately. We're holding this to the standards that we believe it should meet.
The Council will ultimately. . .
Conrad: So we don't care if they get money from, it's not our job. Okay. What governs the
metal wall? What is the ordinance. .. ?
AI-Jaff: The site plan standards, architectural standards prohibit corrugated, prohibits metal.
You can use it as an accent or. ..top of the roofbut that's it. It's...
Conrad: Site plan standards. What's that?
Aanenson: The zoning ordinance. It is in the zoning ordinance for design.
Conrad: Okay. Last question. What governs the signage and the location of sign age? You're
recommending bringing it down.
Aanenson: That's in the sign ordinance.
AI-Jaff: And there is a variance...
Conrad: We're letting them have it. We're just questioning where it should be?
Al-Jaff: Correct. One of the conditions of approval ofthe variance is to bring it down.
Conrad: And if we didn't like to bring it down, how could we rationalize not bringing it? How
could we rationalize leaving it where they proposed it? What would give us the feeling that we
could not follow the ordinance?
Aanenson: Ifwe were to go through the variance procedure and the criteria you'd look at that.
Maybe you would say because this building's so architecturally significant that it merited
something, a different type ofa treatment. Some criteria such as that. I guess that's what we're
saying is not there.
Conrad: We need a positive. We need something.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
Aanenson: Well there's a hardship such that there's absolutely no other way to do it. That they
would be denied something that everybody else has a right to visually see a sign. Something like
that.
Conrad: Could it be that? As we take it under, and you once take it off the roof, which is what
they've done on the other side which would be real, that would be the integrity of the building.
Aanenson: Although what they did do some different architectural treatments such as dormers
that may be more difficult to put those up there. Also, they're significantly higher on the back
side than they are on the front side. I understand what you're saying, that it would mirror what's
happening on the front but these are a lot higher. Our sign ordinance only allows, the highest
sign we allow is 20 feet and that's where these are. So it's really almost like a free standing sign.
I'm not sure where your sight line's going to be. 20 feet seems pretty high for that type of traffic
but.
Conrad: You can't see the sign from the street? . .
Aanenson: No, I'm not saying. I'm not sure that that's, are they marketing to Highway 5? Are
people.. .
Conrad: No, we're giving them. They don't have a street frontage and so.. .there's no visibility
except in the parking lot.
AI-Jaff: The parking lot, you will be able to see...
Burton: Yeah, I'm looking at the staff report and it talks about lighting and then it talks about the
lights on the east side. No, on the west side. Are there any other...
AI-Jaff: The applicant is not proposing any light fixtures on any other elevation. As far as
parking lot lights, those are already there and they were constructed as part of the cinema.
Burton: You don't think that.. .lighting on the east side, on the front or south?..
Peterson: Questions?
Blackowiak: I have another quick question. One of the conditions talks about the brick being
higher. Can you define that? Do you have a specific height in mind or?
AI-Jaff: Well it would be extended up to the roofline, similar to what you see along the north
elevation facing West 78th Street on the Frontier Building.
Peterson: Other questions?
Burton: Yeah, one more. On the same condition. . . that would minimize the appearance of the
corrugated metal and I believe I'm correct in that. . . whole side covered.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Peterson: Any other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to
address the Planning Commission tonight?
Clayton Johnson: Hi, I'm Clayton Johnson again from the Bloomberg Companies and I thought
before Bob Davis runs throughout plan, I did want to give you, have an opportunity to answer
your questions that were asked last time. I felt the public hearing was closed and there were a
number of questions that were asked that we didn't get a chance to address and one of them
seems to be we can't seem to bury this old entertainment center and I tried to make the point and
is that the entertainment complex, as it was presented, is dead. It never got built. And our plan is
a totally new plan that, a plan for the Frontier Building. It's the first time it's been presented. I
think we've been characterized as all ofa sudden changing the plan. We never changed the plan.
Weare a new applicant with a new use for all the Frontier Building. And there are several things
about the old plan that you all raised concerns about that you know you don't like the new plan as
well, or functional that relates to the use that we have found. And you know if you have any
questions about that, the issue of TIF and some of those things, you know I'd like to be able to
answer those. Some of those were asked last time. You must have concerns.
Conrad: TIF is not our job. And to be honest with you, I don't know what the entertainment part
was.
Clayton Johnson: Yeah, as far as the vision, we've got a vision for the balance of the property to
the rear. It's been, we've presented it on more than one occasions to the HRA. It involves,
Herb's always envisioned an office use on a part of that property and I don't know if you're
familiar with the current ML T proposal but basically that's an out growth of Herb's vision. A
complimentary use to the Dinner Theater with the parking that is already there for the Dinner
Theater would be able to be used during the day. We also envision further retail uses on the east
side. However we didn't, you know we're not able to address those. There are current leases on
those properties. Those tenants have rights and by agreement we presented this as a phased
project and we're dealing with the Frontier Center right now. The east elevation is being
addressed. You know the parking lot made that east elevation very visible. There's no question
about that. And over there we were faced with four different types of material that we were
trying to cover. So the decision was made to panel or to side that whole thing because it really
was the only solution that would have been attractive. On the alley side on the other hand
though, we simply disagree. You know the code issue is on new structures. This is an existing
structure and very honestly we just have a very honest disagreement about what would look
better. Herb thinks that a combination of the structural field panel with the billboards that we're
going to erect there, and the way it's painted out, is going to look better than siding it. And it's
about a $7,000.00 issue. We will side the building but we think it's a mistake. We think that
siding on that big structure and that little alley is going to be less attractive. But that's not, that's
just a judgment call. Otherwise I'd like Bob Davis to run through, I think the last time, parts of
the presentation got missed and so Bob's going to run it through real quick for you.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6,1998
Bob Davis: Good evening, I'm Bob Davis. I'm back. Our program here is to rework a building
that is 33 years old. Was a lumber yard. It was a steel, metal structural building. I don't want to
argue the point. The metal has been there 33 years. We think we can live with it in the alley.
We hope you can live with it in the alley. It's not a driving street. We are adding a sidewalk
down the alley. People can cross over. But let me go on with some of the items that we're
covering here. The design is based on a retail space, what the owner would like to do, and the
character of the Frontier complex. And let me go a different direction and remind you what the
other buildings look like. Can you focus on the... One of the things that you'll see is a mansard,
on almost all of these facades and the last work that Bloomberg did was the High Timber Lounge
and that has the high mansard. It has the signs in front of it. Let me pass this around so you can
get a good close-up look of it. On this building we're using the same architectural feature of the
mansard roof. We're using the same sign pattern. We're raising, or rather lowering the glass on
the existing old lumber yard building is 16 feet high. We're lowering it to 10 feet. We're
bringing the mansard up here to lower the appearance of the building. This is a structural metal
building that in all purposes here on the south side is being covered up. We think it's retail
friendly. There are some tenants that would like to lease space here. Ifwe go to the top
elevation, the east elevation, as Clayton mentioned there were three different kinds of material on
that side. There's some block. There's some wood. There's some metal. The solution is to side
that whole panel. It's far more visible to the parking lot. Actually both parking lot areas, but the
alley we feel that the metal siding which has been there, can remain. It's a narrow alley. It's not
our vision that people would drive down that alley. But if people choose to walk, there is some
interest created by these billboards which would have a theme of the history of the community.
Let's look at the colors. ... we're looking at a silver, gray on that area where the side is. We're
looking at a teal color, which is this color accent for the doors and trim. The brick is a red brick,
similar color. .. building in front. If we take a look at that, the brick does not go higher than the,
the brick has columns but it isn't a high wall of brick anymore. The whole brick idea is the same
panel that is used all the way around the complex as a wood siding that comes up.. .and it's 30
inches high and.. . all around that whole block area. I think it's inappropriate to carry the brick all
the way up. I would not choose to do it. I guess I don't want to argue the point... It's a building
that really needs a new life. I think all the landscape questions you had last time have been
resolved. If you take a look at this. We're quite intensively landscaping three of the comers...
. This is the alley here from the main street side down to where the cinema entrance is across the
way here. This is where the sidewalk is added. The front of this building would be the south
side and the entrance of the retail space has sidewalks. The suggestion about flower boxes I
think is a good idea. Something that certainly this time of year, if somebody will maintain, could
be a nice spark of color. This area will be highly landscaped.. . and I think we all agree that we're
screening the air conditioning units. We're screening the dumpster areas and we're screening
some of the loading docks. I'd just like to ask if there any other questions that I can help clarify?
Does anybody have anything that needs further explanation?
Conrad: Talk to me about signage a little bit. Do you want to talk about that now or should we
do it later?
Bob Davis: Yes. I think we're matching the High Timber Lounge signage. That has a high
mansard roof. The signage is up high. I think this is the place to put the signage. It's on a
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6,1998
parking lot, it's not on the street. If you take the cue from all this other frontier complex, the
signs are the same. We're matching what we're doing in the high, what we did on the High
Timber Lounge. I think it's inappropriate to pull them down under the mansard.
Clayton Johnson: .., we're designing a retail building with a lot of flexibility. The whole... In
other words, we don't know exactly how many square feet. .. One of the reasons for putting the
signs on the roof is because we don't know how many tenants we're going to have and how
many signs. Once you go to the suggestion, and to bring the signs down below the mansard, you
end up with three spaces because there are posts that allow for three spaces. If we were to do
that, then we'd have to have the flexibility of going over and putting the signs on the wall,
because we don't know how many tenants... So that's one of the reasons. Vemelle did you
have...
Vemelle Clayton: . . . You talked about the signage being, I think it's a real part of architectural
element. I guess I'd disagree with the staff report. I think if the signs were on the mansard roof
it could be considered to do that. I also, from a perspective, and this frequently unless they're
talking about the development and this particular case of while historically I would assume the
same thing for the same building. This time I am involved in working with someone who is
wanting to be a tenant there and signage is very important to them. They are not at all happy
with having signs under the, what we're calling the mansard roof and I don't believe it's a roof
but under the mansard. It's not very visible. It's not going to be very easy to have attractive
looking signs. There's going to be no background for the signs because behind the sign will be
the clutter of the windows and so forth. And visibility is important. If you go out, if you go and
sit in the back of that parking lot, coming off Pauly Drive, they will want to be able to be seen
from people driving up, not only once you get to the parking lot. So I think that the building will
look better with the signs on the roof. I think the mansard will look better with the signs on it
and I think it will look better for the building because all the rest of the signs are on what we are
calling roofs. Now as I said, I don't think that the roof, I think it's just an attachment to the wall
which historically all mansards are anyway. They're not roofs. They're walls. They were made
originally to avoid having to pay taxes on wall space in Europe so they really are walls but I
guess I just want to be clear that it will be a disadvantage and a hardship for the tenant if they
don't have signage that is easily seen because that's a remote spot. I also wanted to mention
something about the alley while I have a chance. Historically I've been involved in two projects
that related to the alley. Always it was seen...pedestrian oriented walkway. On the last go
around, when we talked.. .kind of lumped together as a "entertainment complex". Which started
out as kind of an acronym and kind of got to be.. .but there's nothing that says that legally it is.
We just kind of called it that. At that time the alley was perceived to be something that we
would hope to be a little bit fanciful. Kind of fun. At the time we were at the dialogue during
the presentation as it were, that based on the comments.. .even graffiti, planned graffiti... So to
summarize then, I think this is, his ideas of the representations of some of our history, with the
train, the farmer, and the Indians I guess, or whatever they are. Frontiersmen, okay. Yes. Are
kind of a good, a nice kind of fun, intervening kind of thing and I'd like to see those there. I
think they're kind of cute. The other side of the wall, just to be perfectly, to clarify, the other
side of the wall, everything that is opposite that is the cinema. The hotel starts farther to the
north. That's all cinema. They're going to paint it. I think they're past the rough spots and it
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6,1998
will be painted. So it's not going to be anything really gussied up. It's just going to be painted.
So we need a balance. And whether you like the corrugated or not, I think the corrugated with
the signs, with those, are a lot more fun, I'm sorry, than a flat surface of wood boards.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant from fellow commissioners? .. .can answer it
obviously. One of the staffs conditions that I alluded to earlier was their condition about adding
architectural interest to the mansard roof. Can somebody respond to that? I mean are you
thinking of entertaining that idea? No pun intended there.
Bob Davis: No. It would be truly a fake dormer for nothing, would serve no purpose. I mean if
I can see it was a ventilation for something or it was a window to someplace or, the one on the
Dinner Theater actually has a function. I don't want to get caught up on just adding something
because somebody thinks it looks better than somebody thinks it looks. I think we need to take
the direction from the owner of the building, from the retail tenants who are here and from the
frontier complex itself, which really started the idea of the wood shingle roof and shingle
mansard. And it's 35 or 40 years old.
Peterson: Not putting words into your mouth, you're saying that architecturally right now, the
way you presented it is where you want it to be.
Bob Davis: Yes it is.
Peterson: A number of the conditions that the staff has presented, you're still not in support of is
what I'm hearing, right?
Bob Davis: I think my charge was here, not to be argumentative.
Peterson: .. . clarification is where we're at.
Bob Davis: But no, I stand on that... what is the dormer for?
Aanenson: To add interest to the building. We have fake dormers throughout the entire
community. We have them on the hotel next door. I mean your picture doesn't go to the
building next door which has pitched roofs. We put them on the new hotel going in. We have
fake windows over there too. It's to add architectural interest instead of the mansard roof. I
mean people do that all the time.
Bob Davis: I think I'll let the owner of the building, if you want to negotiate that, I'll let it go
there.
Clayton Johnson: I ran it by Herb tonight. You know I guess what do you do? Do you tell
Picasso to make the ears bigger on the drawing? I don't know. I'm in the middle but basically
we presented that and Herb's vision is that's his architectural vision. And he doesn't, you know
the dormers on the Dinner Theater are functional. They're offices. There are windows. I don't
know what they did on the hotel. We didn't build the hotel but yes. I ran it by him. You know
9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
there are things that we're willing to compromise and things we're not. We unfortunately, you
do have to understand the economics a little bit because there is this conception, or there is this
perception the city's going to pay for it. The first thing that happens is, we spend a half a million
dollars, $550,000.00 remodeling the building. The second thing that happens is are taxes go
from $25,000.00 to $75,000.00 a year. We have to make an economic judgment that what we do
to that building is going to functional and going to be of interest and going to be rentable. So
when it comes to that, and I'm faced with making the economic decision, who do I rely on? I
will rely on Herb. That was the whole purpose of bringing the people here the other night. They
weren't here to offer testimonials of Herb. They were here as neighbors saying we like his
architecture. We're happy with his design and as an officer of the company I have to bet on that.
We are going to be dependent on the financial success and we have had a long history of building
buildings that people like and will occupy. So I don't know what more to say. It's an honest
disagreement. We're not disagreeing to be disagreeable. It's an honest disagreement.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, this is not open for a public hearing so
I'm just looking for comments from my fellow commissioners.
Fred Oelschlager: Can I just say one thing about, Hempel right?
Hempel: Yeah.
Fred Oelschlager: I'm Fred Oelschlager with Bloomberg Companies. I've been with him for 40
years and to address the questions you had about the sheeting of the water coming down the side
of the building. Sharmin and I talked about that I think the first part of the week and shortly after
our conversation Steve Kirchman called me because I did talk to him and bring it up to him and
so forth. And we had about a 15 minute conversation on the phone about the sheeting of the
water on the alley side of that building. And the reason there's gutters and will be gutters on the
east side is because we have an erosion problem if we don't have gutters on the east side. That's
the Dinner Theater side. Steve basically does not have any problem, in our conversation with the
sheeting of the water coming off of that balen roof, which is an oval roof. It comes off uniform.
It doesn't shoot out more than about a foot to 18 inches when it does come down. He wanted to
know the volume of water that would come off of there. We're researching that right now. He is
not insistent upon a gutter. He says it's not necessary. Ifwe have a problem and gutters would
have to be used somewhere in the future, we could address it at that time. As of now, the water
would come off in a sheet. Hit this flume and still come out every 30 foot intervals underneath
the sidewalk into the alley, like the cinema is doing right now.
Clayton Johnson: And into the storm sewer...
Fred Oelschlager: Right, right, because there are storm sewers... So if that answers your
question about whatever. Okay.
Peterson: Do you want to respond?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6,1998
Hempel: Mr. Chairman. I guess I'll disagree a little bit with that. During the summertime and
so forth I'll agree but during the late winter, early spring where we do get a lot of freeze/thaw,
that dripping will have icicles. You'll have icicles dropping off the roof as well onto a sidewalk
area so I guess I would strongly recommend the use of downspout roof gutters is the
recommendation. And also there is a storm sewer down the alleyway. They're not proposing to
tie into it. It's simply a gutter drain underneath the sidewalk and flow out into the alleyway
which is acceptable. The cinema's doing it that way but I would think from an icicle standpoint,
that you'd want to look at doing something with that.
Fred Oelschlager: Can I just rebuttal on one thing. I meant to mention that at the top here also.
.. .because water can't away.. . sheeting operation like that.. . never have any problems on that
building. We did have icing on the cinema building.. .but putting a gutter on the alley side would
cause more... I mean I've been here 40 years, I know what that roof does...
Peterson: .. . another disagreement.
Fred Oelschlager: Well Steve, when I talked to Steve he said if we do have problems.. . and
maybe we can make adjustments at that time.
Peterson: LuAnn, do you want to start this one out?
Sidney: Sure. I'd be happy to. I had a lot of thoughts about this application and I guess maybe
I'll start off with kind of the overall issue that I'm kind of wrestling with and I think the applicant
has talked a lot about blending architecture. You know continuation of the architecture from the
rest of the complex and I guess I'm having a hard time with that because on the south side of the
building now we started a different type of architecture with the cinema and I would think that
that would be the focal point where your architecture would tie in to any other buildings that
would be developed in that area. So I think the idea that, you know the architecture should
reflect the Dinner Theater architecture, I'm not sure ifI'm really convinced that it should. And I
see this building as a transition between the cinema and the Dinner Theater style of architecture.
And at this point I see it more closely tied to what you've already done and it, to me it isn't really
showing some you know new type of innovative design that would kind of enhance that south
side of that whole complex. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a little concerned about
still the overall architecture and your insistence on a mansard roofbut you know I can see where,
you know I can live with it but I'm still rather confused by it not tying in with the cinema.
Fred Oelschlager: Can I put...
Peterson: Let's go through all the comments. I don't think we're going to get response to every
one of them so.
Sidney: So I guess that's my overall concern and I think when this was presented to the HRA
and City Council, you know you were to the point where you were talking about colors of bricks
and basic architecture was discussed at that time and I see what was presented at that point, tying
more into what the cinema has developed into at this point. So I'd like to jump to a few other
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
points, specific ones about the corrugated metal. I'm concerned that, I don't think we want that
on the side of the building to be visible. We can see it in your photo and we're remarking about
that and I don't think it really adds to the appearance of the building. And so I would really want
to see us strive for a higher quality material on that side of the building. A few other things. I
guess my concern, I guess there's a lot of concern about the signage and I think I'm in agreement
with the applicant at this point because I do think the building needs to be really supported by a
visible sign. It's in a remote location. I think the applicant does need a break in terms of
signage. I'll see if there are some other things that I could comment on here. Maybe I'll leave it
at that and have the other commissioners comment.
Peterson: Thank you. Matt.
Burton: I sort of feel like I'm being pressured to like something that I really don't like.. .like very
much. As we discussed at the last meeting, this is anticipated to be one of the most frequented
areas of the city. I think the staff has. . .held it to higher standards, sort oflike the theater and
what I think the entertainment complex was envisioned to be. And I don't see this design
meeting those higher standards and in terms of just general appearance and design and materials,
as LuAnn mentioned, I do not like the corrugated metal on the side. I think that putting, finishing
the side really almost anyway it would be an improvement to what's proposed. I find the front to
be unappealing. I don't think taking the 78th Street Frontier complex look around to the back
translates very well aesthetically. I think, I tried to figure out why and I think it's just because
it's so much bigger in the back and so much higher that it just, I don't believe it works and I
know that's a fundamental disagreement that you have with a lot of the comments that have been
made. I think that the mansard look, and I don't know ifl'm using the right terminology but the
big, the mansard hanging off the, over the roof on the south, to me it looks dated also and I look
at what was given to us and what was the prior application and I find that significantly more
appealing and I also, when I look at that I see without the mansard there and having... wall, you
could lower the sign so I think that, those two could go hand in hand. So I guess that's basically
it. I just don't really like much about it at all. I agree that the staff s recommendation of the
brick veneer should be elevated if this is the plan that we have. And I agree with the staff
conditions, but based upon what I'm seeing here, I don't believe that I could support this plan
because I just don't think it fits at all into what's envisioned for that area of the city.
Peterson: Thank you. Alison.
Blackowiak: I still don't know how I'm ultimately going to vote tonight. I have been struggling
with this as well. And again architecturally maybe I just don't like it but I guess that's not my
main problem. My problem is how does it fit in with the area. Mr. Johnson said that the original
plan was dead. That this is not the original plan but although we're not supposed to consider
TlF, they were given money based on an original plan and I, I don't know. As a taxpayer I just
have a problem giving money to something that I really don't like. And I don't know. I don't
want to get into that right now. The mansard roofl don't really think fits with the cinema.
We've got an area right now. I think we need to think about how it ties in with the whole
southern exposure. This would probably, and if it had a northern exposure. If it looked out onto
the parking lot to the north. If it looked out onto the parking lot to the east maybe. But on the
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
south I don't think it really fits. Matt made a good point about the size of the building and I think
that's part of the problem. When you look at how tall the building is, adding a roof, or the
mansard in front, is just going to make it look taller and I don't know if that's really what we
want to have. It's, aesthetically I'm having a problem with the look of the building. I do agree
with the staff's recommendations. I agree that if we do go with this plan, we need to have the
brick go all the way to the top. I do not like the corrugated metal on the west side. I do believe
we should have some sort of a water catch system, whether it's downspouts or whatever because
I'm not convinced that we're not, pedestrians going down that area aren't going to get drenched
at any given point from water sheeting off the building. I don't know. I don't think it fits well
with the existing cinema and unfortunately the cinema got there first and maybe is tending to set
the standard for that area. I don't know if that's good or bad but I think I would like to see this
tie in more with the cinema than with the Dinner Theater.
Peterson: Allyson.
Brooks: Well, I think something really needs to be done with the building as it is now. I mean it
really is an eyesore. I'm not overwhelmed with this design. I'm not under whelmed with this
design. I think I'm like Alison. I have really mixed feelings. I would love to see something
happen in that area. This gives me kind of a bland feeling. I don't think, if we go with this
design, to me the signage is okay on the roof. I don't really have a problem with it. I do agree
with Vemelle that people do need to see the signs somehow. And for the rest of the
recommendations that the planning staff has, I do think we should go with the planning staff. I
think they have, they really do have good vision for our community and that we should continue
to follow their direction.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: Isn't it a nice testimonial? Boy, this is sort of... we get into architecture and stuff like
that. Thank you for coming back and making the presentation better. I feel better about it. I felt
you made some changes and that helps. These are tough issues you know we get into. Architect
versus some standards and it gets messy. I can't really figure out some of this stuff. Ijust can't
. .80 I mean I have to roll with the staff report. I'm not convinced that the alley is going to be, you
know I wouldn't make the alleyway a big deal because the flip side of an alley is not a big deal.
We're not going to have a beautiful alleyway, walkway there but staff report I think covers it. I
really do. I'm comfortable with that. The only thing that I disagree with on the staff report is the
signage. Just, we all have personal opinions on this whole thing so that's why we can't even talk
about it. You know we've got to rely on the staff to help and stuffbut the nice thing about
architecture is difference. It's not the sameness. At one point in time we were going to have the
whole city being a frontier style city. Isn't it nice that it's not. You know just, so to think that we
should match the entertainment center, no. That's boring. That really is boring. I think the
variety back there, I think this is fine. Is this my choice? Probably not but that's not my
business. I think it will add some variety back there and that's okay. I'm more interested in how
else we can, what else we can do back there. I think that's a bigger issue but at hand, you know
staff report's fine. Other than the signage, I'm not comfortable with the applicant's signage, yet I
don't want to bring it down below the roof. I think that will hide them. I think that's a problem.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
I think that destroys some of the visibility and signage is so major in these buildings. It is just a
big deal so I'm sort of begging the question here and, not begging the question. I think the staff
report is pretty close to being what we should follow.
Peterson: Well, you've obviously heard opinions. Across the board from staff. From fellow
commissioners and I guess I too have opinions. I'm struggling as to how to articulate them and I
think that in many ways we're tasked by the City Council to offer our opinions and
recommendation about a lot of different things within the zoning and architectural consistency
and compatibility and I think that's really what you're hearing tonight. And we're dealing with
Herb's opinion tonight. You guys may not even agree with him. What we're trying to do is
listen to your comments. Listen to staffs comments and sort through what's best for the city in
that area. And as I gather that, I'll get to you in a second. I'll get to you in a second. Let me
finish my comments. As I get to that, and my opinion is not dissimilar to some of my fore
colleagues in that architectural compatibility, I just don't see it fitting in to what 1 envision for
that area. Whether you call it the entertainment complex is dead. I don't know if anything is
dead. Something will go there and we're going to be asked for our opinion on that also. And I
clearly do think that Ladd's comment about Chanhassen was once going to be a frontier city, now
aren't we glad it's not. Some people may be glad. Some people may not be. And I think that
there's a balance and I think right now where I'm at is that the balance is, this is not the way that
I see that area going. I would not support the development.. .as presented without adhering to the
staff s comments in totality. That means that I have a difficult time approving this because the
staff is asking for some architectural change that I don't see. I can't approve something that is
being asked for in a pretty generic sense. Those are my comments. I saw a hand in the audience.
I'd be happy to entertain.
Joseph Boyer: I really didn't come here, to this meeting for this but anyway I just wanted to offer
my comments. I've been in the building business in this area for 55 years and my family
continues on and we have dealt with the Bloomberg Companies and Herb Bloomberg and all
their designs and their architecture of their buildings has been excellent. If Herb Bloomberg told
me he could make a corrugated building look like a crown jewel, I'd have to believe him.
Because this man is that kind of a person and I think what they're giving you is another
Bloomberg good design. Very functional, well designed building because that's been their
nature. That's their character. That's the way they've always worked. That's my experience
with Mr. Bloomberg. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you for those comments. Hearing all the comments from the fellow
commissioners, may I have a motion and a second please.
Conrad: I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for the
Frontier Building, 98-7 SPR with a variance to allow signs on a building that does not have direct
frontage on a public street as shown on the site plan dated March 23rd, 1989. And revised on
April 27th, 1998, with the conditions as listed in the staff report dated May 6th with the following
changes. That we strike the first line in condition number 6 and that we add a condition number
15 that the applicant work with the City Engineer on the appropriate roof drainage on the west
side of the building.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6,1998
Peterson: Is there a second to that motion?
Brooks: I'll second it.
Peterson: Any discussion? I don't know how I want to either ask for a friendly amendment or
not. On condition number 12, that's a huge condition and I have a hard time voting, passing this
onto Council and basically saying let them deal with it.
Conrad: Absolutely Craig.
Peterson: I think, that's my only concern. On that note I will ask for a.
Conrad: Can I respond? The Council will have opinions. Why keep it here? We don't know
what.. . we can't guide these folks and the City Council and the Bloombergs but.. .
Peterson: We've done our civic duty. With that may I ask for a vote.
Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the site plan for the Frontier Building (98-7 SPR) with a variance to allow signs on a
building that does not have direct frontage on a public street, as shown on the site plan
dated march 23,1989, and revised on April 27, 1998, with the following conditions:
1. All existing and proposed rooftop equipment shall be screened from views, specifically
from Highway 5.
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site.
3. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual letters and
logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be
constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. Tenant neon illuminated
signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper
name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, and similar
identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and
do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. The applicant shall consider utilizing a
font/sign style that is compatible with the building.
4. The applicant and/or their assignee shall be responsible for any additional sewer and water
hook up charges associated with remodeling the building based on the number of SAC
units determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Sewer Commission.
5. Fire Department recommends the following policies be followed (copies attached).
Policy #01-1990
Policy #02-1990
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998
Policy #04-1991
Policy #06-1991
Policy #07-1991
Policy #29-1992
Policy #34-1993
Policy #36-1994
Policy #40-1995
Policy #44-1997
6. The west elevation shall be redesigned in a fashion that would minimize the appearance of
the corrugated metal. The brick on the building shall be extended higher.
7. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance
with the conditions of approval.
8. The applicant shall add some architectural interest to the mansard roof along the south
elevation. This could be done in the form of dormers.
9. The applicant shall add flower boxes around the base of the columns along the south
elevation.
10. The design should be revised to collect the roof runoff into downspouts and conveyed
underneath the sidewalk.
11. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer for the appropriate roof drainage on the
west side of the building.
All voted in favor, except Burton and Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 2.
Burton: Basically I articulated earlier. Even with the staffs recommendations, I still don't think
it fits in to the area back there. I just have too many problems with this design in that location.
Peterson: .., the simple fact is, I want to be sure we get Council's attention that it needs some
more work. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN (LGU) DURING THE YEAR 1998 HEREBY PROVIDES
NOTICE THAT IT HAS APPLIED FOR A WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT AS
PART OF THE 1998 TRAIL PROJECTS. THIS APPLICATION PROPOSED TO
IMPACT 1.4 ACRES OF WETLANDS ALONG PORTIONS OF HWY 7. GALPIN
BOULEVARD. POWERS BLVD. GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND PIONEER TRAIL. THE
PROPOSED IMPACT FROM THE TRAIL PROJECTS WILL BE MITIGATED BY
16