Loading...
1992 09 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. · MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Brian Batzlt, and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Emmings and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paui Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmtn A1-Jaff, Planner I; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Dave Hempei, Sr. Engineering Technician; and Don Ashworth, City Manager ' PUBLIC HERRING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A 1.5 ~CRE PARCEL ~NTO TWO LOTS OF ~9.172 AND 20.000 SGU~RE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE F~d~ILY AND LOCATFD AT 8412 GREAT PLAINS BOUkEVARD. EUGENE KLEIN. Public Present: Name Address Gene Klein Norm Grant Joe Eickholt 8412 Great. Plains Blvd. 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 8408 Great Plains Blvd. Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzlt called the public hearing to order. Gene Klein: My name is Gene Klein. I live at the 84i2 Great Plains Blvd.. I worked with Sharmin on everything and as far as I can see, I have no problems with anything. 8atzli: Okay. So you agree with, have you seen the staff-report? Gene Klein: Right. I agree. Batzli: And you agree with those.conditions? Gene Klein: Right. Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If anyone else would like to comment on the proposal before the Commission. I'd encourage you to step forward to the microphone. Give us your name and address. Joe Eickholt: Good evening. I'm Joe Eickholt. How you doing Gene? I live at 8408 Great Plains Blvd.. I 'm next door to Gene and I just walked in the door so I haven't had a chance to see'where the site of the .house is and the type of house that is proposed. Is that possible to review? Al-Jaff: None of that is available right now. It's only a subdivision. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 2 Joe Eickholt: I see. Al-Jarl: They're just proposin~ to divide the property into two parcels. Joe Eickholt: Okay. So there's no plans for a home at this time? Al-Jarl: A house, no. Joe Eickholt: I see. Krauss: Maybe I should clarify something. .The City is not in the business of approvin~ particular house plans. We approve the lot it sits on...setbacks and open space ratios and that sort of thing but beyond that, it's up to the owner... Joe Eickholt: Okay. I saw you just put that up. Is that some type of a proposal for setbacks you do? ~ Al-Jarl: No, that's the existin9 structures. The ~ara~e is going to be torn down and a residence will replace it. Joe Eickholt: Okay. Batzli: At the time that the residence comes in, what approvals will the applicant have to 9o through? Does it just require a building permit a.t that time? Al-Jarl:. Correct. As long as they meet a minimum square footage, they should be fine. They meet the setbacks. That's all we really look at. Joe Eickholt: Okay. I mean Gene and I, we've gotten along real well and he's been the best of neighbors and I just, I did have some concerns about a structure going up there. As far as how it would affect my property next door and activities and so on-and so forth. Batzli: Do you live to the northeast? Joe Eickholt: Yes. Batzli: So you're closer to the metal garage than the current house? Joe Eickholt: That's correct. Batzli: Do you have any other comments, or? Joe Eickholt.: No. I guess I don't. Batzli: Thank you. Gene Klein: If I can address Joe. Basically the structure that's there now is going to be torn down and that would be where the house will be built. In that same location... Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 3 8atzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else lire to address t'he Commission? Erhart moved. Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Rll voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Erhart: I have one for 5. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted within the 75 foot setback. Is going to be permanently or is that just during the subdividing of the lot? Al-Jarl: It's extremely steep down there. Erhart: Okay, but let's say a guy comes in and builds a house. Somehow we think that, this action doesn't pertain to the guy that's building the house. It pertains to Mr. Klein. In my opinion. Isn't that correct? Batzli: It would depend on who built the house, wouldn't it? Erhart: This doesn't pertain to the guy that's building the house. Al-Jaff: It runs with the land. Whatever conditions we have, usually run wi th the land. Erhart: So we're saying, it's real steep there so. Al-Jarl: And wooded. We would like to preserve that area. Because if they remove anything, this could cause erosion into the lake. That's the only reason behind it really. Erhart: That's the only question I have. Conrad: Nothing. Ledvina: No. Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: There are State conditions covering the 75 foot setback too isn't there? The DNR also requires a setback? Al-Jarl: Correct. And that is 75 feet so they are covered here. Farmakes: I have no further questions. Batzli: What are the other permitted or conditional uses in RSF here? In this zone. Is there any use that would allow him to keep-his garage? Al-Jarl: No. None. Batzlt: If that was the main structure, it was a conditional use allowed in that zone, couldn't he keep his garage? Al-Jarl= It's an accessory structure. You can't have an accessory structure without a main structure. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, ~992 - Page 4 Batzli: Assume for a minute that there is a conditional use that would be allowed in that zone where that would become the primary structure. Is that outside the realm of possibility? Al-Jarl: Correct. It would be permitted in an Agricultural Estate district for instance· If you have more than...or more but not in an RSF district. Am I answering your question? Batzli: It just seems stunning to me that by subdividing he's forced to tear that down· But he's agreed to it, so I don't .have anything else. Erhart: I'll make a motion. Did everybody get a chance? I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-10 as shown on the plans dated 3uly 31, 1992 and conditions 1 thru $ as stated in the staff report. Conrad: I second. Batzli: Any discussion? Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Plannt~ Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #92-10 as shown on the plans dated July 31, 1992, subject to the following conditions: · It is preferred to have a single access to service both Parcels A and 8; however, should the applicant wish to provide a second driveway access, a permit will be required from MnDot. If the existing driveway is utilized to service both lots, then a cross access or driveway easement in favor of both properties will need to be recorded at the County. 2. The following easements and right-of-way shall be provided: a. Dedication of fee ownership of Highway 101 right-of-way. b. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the existing sanitary sewer through both lots. c. Standard drainage and utility easements along each. lot line. The applicant may want to consider petitioning the city for extens'ion of trunk watermain facilities at this time in lieu of drilling a well. 4. The newly created lot will be required to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and pay the appropriate connection fees. 5. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted within .the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water, mark of Lake Susan. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 5 6. The existing garage on proposed Parcel A shall be demolished prior to recording this subdivision with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried. puBLIC HEARIN6: SITE PLAN REVIEW4 OF A 10,600 SQUARE FOOT ~>DITZON ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD. CENTRA~ BusINESS DISTRICT ~ LOCATED AT 4~0 ~EST 7eTH STREET. (PHASE OF THE CHANH~$$EH PROF~SSTONAL BUILDINg. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Bob CoPeland: My name is Bob Copeland and I am the applicant. And I'd like to Just address a few of the recommendations that the staff has given the Planning Commission here and just kind of go down them one by one if I may. I'm on pages 6 of the staff report. On item number 1, regarding a restaurant, we've already agreed to that so we don't have any problem with not having a restaurant in the western one-half of the building. Item 2 is really three parts. The first one is eliminating sidewalks projecting into the parking stalls. Our drawing isn't very clear on that and what we really intend is to have two sidewalk projections into the parking lot. And this is consistent with the building that exists there now and it's consistent .with the plans that the City had prepared by 8RW. We also have shown four areas which would be striped on the pavement where cars could not park.-And I think these are the areas that are causing the problem and we will eliminate those. And by doing so, we should be able to be have the number of stalls that the staff is after. Sharmin, would you agree that by doing this, this will be satisfactory to the staff? Al-Jarl: Correct. Bob Copeland: Okay.. Al-Jarl: Then you would be in meeting with what was approved in '89. Bob Copeland: Right. The' next item is to eliminate the access door to the building on the north face, and that's the parking lot size of the structure. We had already agreed to that in our development agreement with the city and so we will go along with that recommendation. The next item is provide more detail on the roof. I'm not sure if anymore detail is required at this time. Is there anything? Related to that. Al-Jarl: No, we discussed that earlier. Bob Copeland: Right. Al-Jaff: Basically we wanted to find out whether the top of the dormers extend like so. Into the roof so it would break it down a little bit rather than having one massive roof. And it does. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page $ Bob Copeland: Okay. The next item is that we'll have no unpainted aluminum on the exterior, and that's fine. Item 4 is erosion control and we'll certainly agree to that. Item 5, ~ guess that's just up to. the city and the HRA about the canopy. Whether the City wants that connection or not. We can see advantages and disadvantages and we're not pushing for it one way or another. conrad: Architecturally, what does it look like? Bob Copeland: What does the canopy look like? Conrad: Yeah. Bob Copeland: I have a rendering here that was prepared some years ago if that would be helpful. I only have one so you can pass it around and see what it would be like. Ledvina: The separation between the two buildings is 72 feet I see on the plan. Is that correct? Bob Copeland: That sounds like more than is there. If someone scaled that from the drawing, and that's what it shows, then. A1-Jaff: I contacted BRW and had them survey it for us. They didn't have time to send us plans but what they surveyed was 72 feet. Bob Copeland: little. Okay. I don't know that that's wrong. It just seems a Ledvina: So the canopy would be 72 feet? Bob Copeland: It would be if it was constructed. Ledvina: That's huge. Bob Copeland: The canopy is not part'of our proposal at-this time. Ledvina: You could put another building between there. Conrad: Yeah, I like that in what was original. So.that would continue the roof line all the way over. And basically the advantage of the canopy is purely, is weather or what was the advantage of the canopy? Bob Copeland: Just aesthetics? And that's a matter of opinion. Some people like it. It sort of identifies an entry to the project. Conrad: And you can enter the two buildings from underneath the canopy? Bob Copeland: You would not be able to, no. There is no entry planned for either building there. While you're looking at that I'Ii Just touch on some of these other points. Item number 6, we will certainly meet all the conditions outlined by the-Fire Marshal. Item number 7 is regarding amending the development agreement to allow an entry within 20 feet on the south side of the structure and certainly we go along with that. ~ . Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 7 Item number 8 is screening HVAC equipment. That's fine. I just added my own item number 9 which really wasn't touched on too much, or somewhat briefly, and that is the cut in the median to allow access to the building so that someone coming from the west can take a left turn into the project and, we have requested that and we feel that that is not really a problem and is not inconsistent with other situations that the City had. Has done in recent years. We think it's just a matter of opinion as to whether it's a safety problem. We don't feel that it is. Also, it's become very important to us because we have one tenant that's moving out of our Phase i building because of the access to the. property and others have complained about it although they haven't threatened to move out. eut we've just become aware that that access, being able to take that left turn there is very important to our tenants. 8atzli: You want the left turn between the two? Bob Copeland: Correct. Batzli: Phase 1 and Phase Bob Copeland: Right. If you're coming from the west and you are about even with the Riveria, you wouldn't necessarily know that you should turn there and if you miss that turn, then you have to go about 800 feet down to the east to Great Plains. Batzli: Paul, where's the stop sign? Krauss: Signal? Batzli: Signal going in? Krauss: There's one at Laredo and one at Great Plains-and then further to the west. Ne have very significant reservations about the median cut. We have regularly recommended against.them where it provides anything less than access to a major site. The only time we considered making one was when on the north side of Market Square which serves 130,000 square feet of retail, and even then after the bank proposal was dropped, we decided not to make the median break. We're dealing with roads that are going to carry extremely high volumes of t~affic. Anytime.you introduce a turning movement, you're introducing difficulty. You're also destroying the landscape median to accomplish it. This site has relatively .good access. It does have access to a median break. I guess that doesn't show it as well as, we brought this here fo~ a different reason. But you can see there's a...right here. Here's a full median break going between the main part of the lot fo~ the Frontier Center. Here's the right-in, right-out only. -Here's the othe~ access... Frankly this site's got better access than a lot of others we have here in town. If anything, we're looking at modification to 7$th Street to handle the more traffic and frankly this is a step in the wrong direction... I mean we just came from a meeting this morning where we are denying Target and another property who wanted two full median b~eaks and, 3? Four or three. Aanenson: Three full median b~eaks. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 8 Krauss: And we would not give them that. They're limited to two that serve both north and south sides of 78th Street. · ~nd that's for 117,000 square foot store and outlots. Batzli: DO you have anything else on the curb cut Ladd? Conrad: Not right now. We'll come back to it. Bob Copeland: Okay. Then as far as this revision to our sign covenant that starts on page 6 and goes onto page'7. We don't-have any problem with the part on page 6 but at the top of page 7, a significant change was made to what we proposed and it starts out saying that a tenant may have no more than one sign. On this pro3ect with people driving by on one side and then accessing the building on the other, we feel it's important to have tenant signs on both sides. And at least have the ability to do that. And we have that situation on the existing building · where we have some tenants with more than one sign and we want to have that ability for this second phase too. We don't see that it creates, should create any problem and we don't really see why there would be any ob3ection to this. Erhart: You're asking for one sign per side? 8ob Copeland: We want to allow a tenant to have up to two signs. Up to and including two signs. Not more than two. Erhart: One per-side. Bob Copeland: One pe~ side. We'd be happy to put that in there too if that further clarifies it. But you can.'t see more than, you can't see the north and south side of the building at the same time so 'it, I don't know why anyone would obi.eot to this. But you can understand how.-a tenant might want to advertise that they're in the building to people driving by on West 78th and then identify where they are within the building to people parking in the parking lot on the other side of the building. So we think it's a reasonable request. Batzli: Explain to me a little bit what kind of tenants you're expecting to bays. Bob Copeland: Well, we have some, they're sort 'of called quasi-retail tenants. They're kind of inbetween office and retail. People like chiropracters. Legal offices. Dental offices. Aocountants. That kind of thing that have people that walk in a lot and they could either be in a retail space or an office space.· We also have the sports, well I don't know what they call it now. The business health group with Waconia Hospital is thinking about relocating their, portions of their business in there too. But virtually every tenant wants $1gnage these days. and it's a real important issue to us. · Batzli: As you're probably aware, we've gone .around and around on the number of signs on Phase 1 so this issue isn't foreign to us. Do you have anything else? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 9 Bob Copeland: Just a couple more things. On item 4, it's stated, or it's proposed anyway that the signs on the north elevation or-the parking lot side be non-illuminated.. We just as soon have them be illuminated, just like the signs are on the south side and on both sides of the Phase 1 building. I think these signs are going to be that high in the air. You know they won't throw off a.lot of light. I can't imagine that the residents in the single family homes to the north are quite a ways away from even the parking lot and there's a lot. more light thrown off by the parking lot lights themselves than these neon tubes that would be within the fixtures. So we'd like to have the ability to have those signs illuminated. Farmakes: Do you consider your tenants or your quasi retail office tenants, whatever they happen to be, lawyers or chtropracters, conducting business after 5:00? Bob Copeland: Could well be. Some of them could. Farmakes: Do you think they'd be open until what? Bob Copeland: It's dark at 5:00 in the winter. Farmakes: No, I'm asking what time do you think they conduct? Bob Copeland: Well I don't know, you know. Probably not late into the night but certainly after dark during the winter months. The last point I want to make then is on the changes that were made to what we proposed under the section that's entitled, (c) Seneral. Number 1. There's a restriction in there on the size of real estate signs. This would be temporary signs for leasing the building, that kind of thing. And what we had proposed is that the signs comply with the current ordinance at the time that we apply for a permit for that kind of sign.. And we don't want to be bound to these restrictions. We'll just comply with whatever your sign ordinance is when we put up a sign. In other words, these dimensions and so on, may be more restrictive than an ordinance that you may have in place 6 months or a year or 2 years or 5 years or whatever fr om now. Batzli: You may be better off under these. Bob Copeland: Well, we'll take our chances. We'll live with whatever your code is or your ordinance is at the time that we apply for a permit. In other words, we Just want the same treatment as everybody else has, that's all. In this regard. Batzli: Anything else? Bob Copeland: No, that's all I have unless you have other questions of me. Batzli: We'll probably have some questions a little bit later on. Thank you. Bob Copeland: Okay, thank you. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 10 Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission at this time? It's a public hearing. Is there a motion to close the public hearing. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. /&Il voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I was a little confused on 2. Have you worked that out or is it still a question whether or not it's consistent with phase 17 Page 6, 2. Al-Jarl: No, we've worked it out. Farmakes: You've eliminated the sidewalk issue? Batzli: Let me just touch on that. I mean sidewalks were a huge deal when we first looked at this regarding walkways through the parking lot to the apartment building to the north and that type of thing. Does this all tie in with the massive amounts of discussion that' went into it last time? I'd hate to just kind of say yes, it's been worked out. .- Al-Jarl: Maybe I shouldn't have called them sidewalks. There are 6 doors, 6 access points on each side .... walkway that intrudes into the parking area and that's where we are losing our parking spaces. Batzli: Since we don't know what kind of, well I guess we kind of know what sort of uses these things are going to be. I always thought that the number of parking spaces that we needed depended on what the uses were in the building. How do we know how many parking spaces we need right now? Krauss: Well, let me approach that from a different angle.. We're dealing with a redevelopment project in here that has parking that serves a multitude of uses that we already know is extremely shOrtlOr close or tight on parking. And knowingly give up stalls right in front of the doors just so we can paint out some spaces, for visibility or for whatever reason, it seems to be something that, a luxury we can't afford. If there's an ability to increase landscape islands in the parking lot and that kind of thing, we're the first ones to propose it but this is a parking lot that's running very tight. 8atzli: But how does it tie in with getting the people through the parking lot safely? Krauss: I guess neither Sharmin nor I are familiar with the discussion- Mr. Chairman. I mean this took place before either of us were here but- the parking lot itself, as you see it today, I mean-the parking lot can be constructed consistent with the plans that were approved 3-4 years ago. Batzli: But see I don't know that we were really looking at this phase that closely when we did it. Al-Jaff: There is a master plan and this parking scheme does not fit with what is out there. In this case they are...from the RiveriaI parking Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 11 area .... this is what exists. Batzli: That's what currently exists? Al-Jarl: Correct. Batzli: I'll come back to this. Jeff, go ahead. Farmakes: Since I was not here when you did Phase l, I'm assuming that what you're going to work out is going to be consistent with what you did on Phase 1 with that issue. Al-Jarl: Correct. Farmakes: Going to line 5, comment on the canopy. This is the original concept here? I think the overall effect of the canopy makes the building, the group look like a lot nicer. It breaks up the roofline. That's a lot of roofline for one. I again have not been involved with your original issues on this building. It seems to me that canopy makes the overall effect of the entire development look a lot nicer. I"m not sure what practical purposes it serves since that information's not in here. Krauss: It serves no practical purpose. It Was a design feature. There's no physical connection between the two buildings that can be accessed through. Farmakes: Well it is, I guess it's an effect that it makes it look more attractive and breaks up the long expanse of roofline. And makes it look like there's something more than two long pitched-roof buildings. I get back to 8(a) where the applicant said 9. There already is a 9 so I don't know how you want to classify that request for the entrance issue. I'm not a traffic engineer. I'll support whatever staff comes up with that. Getting 2 on 9. This is consistent, the 12 inches? What was Worked out with the City Council on the signage issue that we went in Phase 17 Al-Jarl: Correct. Farmakes: $o that's consistent, okay. On the issue of three. I can understand the applicant's concern that the people understand, where the store is when they come up from the, it would be on the north side of the building. However, don't they have to drive past the south side before they enter primarily? The north is not the primary entrance. Am I correct? Would you drive through the sout. h and then traverse to the par king lot? Correct. Farmakes: So you would have a basic understanding of where positioned in that building that would be? The signs are placed where the place of business is. Al-Jarl: Well, there are two accesses that they could. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, i992 - Page i2 Conrad: There's no guarantee 3elf they're going to pass. al-3aff: See the Colonial shoppin~ center. They use the access off of Great Plains Boulevard, then they won't be able to. Farmakes: So a fair statement is that they may or may not? al-3aff: Correct. Farmakes= alright. That's a valid concern that the tenant has on 3. On the issue of the illuminated sign, however that does concern me that that would be on the side of residential area. That those are il!uminated after 5:00 or after it gets dark. So I would support that they be non- illuminated on that one side. To sum up this thing here, I still am terribly uncomfortable with how this whole thing is worked out. That there's a quasi, to quote the applicant, a quasi retail office area. It seems to me that what happens eventually is that visually anyway, the effect is that it becomes a retail area. And if we're looking for some diversity in what we have going on here, in the future I hope that we, if we're going to have a quasi retail area, that we zone quasi retail area that we know is going to turn out to look 'like retail when we plan. That's the last of my comments. Batzli: Did you like the idea of the curb cut.in the center ~f the building? The curb cut that the applicant is proposing? Farma kes: a'cces$. I would defer to the staff on that. On the issue of that Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: Okay. Looking at the canopy issue, I guess I would agree that that kind of unifies the whole development there so I-would support that. I can see the increased traffic on Nest 78th Street and I definitely would concur with the staff on deciding not to put that median cut in there so I would not support an Ea condition. The additional sign for the tenant, that seems reasonable to provide identification on the north side of the building. That's fine. Non-illumination for the north elevation sign, I agree with that point. And I feel that in terms of specifying the square footage of the sign, etc., I guess I would agree with the applicant that they be allowed to meet the ordinance requirements. Whatever they might be at the time that they apply for a sign permit. So I agree with simplying I guess 9(c)(l). And that's it. Satzli: Sharmin, is the sign covenant which accompanies this site plan, that's what you're talking about for the purposes of these various thing? The front/back illumination. That type of thing. That will become part of this covenant that's attached to the site plan?' Al-Jarl: Correct. Batzli: Is there a reason why we were specifying the real estate Sign? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page i3 Al-Jaff: That's what in the city code right now. It's not proposed to be amended. Kate is working on amending the sign ordinance and that section remains as ts. Batzli: Okay, so we're not gaining anything or losing anything really by just saying that they need to comply with the standard? A1-Jaff: No. Batzli: Ladd. Conrad: Briefly, real briefly. I like the canopy. I like how it looks. I'm not paying for it but I like what that does. The median Cut. I guess I don't like the traffic flow into-the building, period. ' It's just real cumbersome. No matter where it is, it's real cumbersome. I don't, you know by the Riv, I don't like how that goes in. I don't like passing traffic going through the turn by the clock tower and meandering around to the back. It's just real sloppy. 8atzli: Well sure, you didn't support me when I tried to get that curb cut closed though did you, 3 years ago? Conrad: I don't know. Maybe it was late at night and whatever. But it's just. Erhart: You're not negative on it are you? Conrad: It's real cumbersome. I'm amazed we're doing this stuff and then if Target moves in, weI have other problems along 78th Street. $o yeah, I don't want to, I think if the engineer says .we shouldn't have a curb cut through the median, that we have to pay attention but still I don't like, I don't like the access to the site, period. And I think with Target moving in, I would hope we're doing some work on the entire West 78th Street. I would hope so and I think this should be part of that. The right place for people to enter is under the canopy which we may not build. But you know, that's where it should be. I think absolutely that this is a retail center. Absolutely has to have two signs. One on 78th. One on the other side. The illuminated, I'm not sure about. It's facing residential. Even though it's retail, ! don't know that we were, I think we were thinking office at the time and there wouldn't be signage back there. I guess I'm not real comfortable illuminating it. There very definitely has to be a sign-over there. Has to be. Just no doubt in my mind. The free standing signs and ali the restrictions, I'm just assuming that all, well for the monument signs. No. No, I'm not even. There's a statement in here, the copy shall have a maximum height of 1 foot and be internally. Is that a Standard or are we making that up? Al-Jaff: We're making that up. That is what they are requesting in their covenants so. Conrad: So they're comfortable? You're comfortable with that? Bob Copeland: We bought that...Phase 1. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 14 8atzli: If the Council agreed to...Phase 1. That's consistent. Conrad: It is consistent? 8atzli: That's what staff said. Consistent with Phase Conrad: Then I really, when I start dictating copy size, you know, we can dictate signage size. I don't have a problem with stgnage but when we start saying copy, geez. That's not .our business but if itJs consistent and the applicant is comfortable, I won't make it an issue. I want to move on. And then I feel comfortable with the applicant saying, hey apply the current ordinance and in terms of the general signage. Yeah, let's just do that. So that's -all. Erhart: Okay. I too, I was really sold on this project when Phase 1 came in because I really liked the canopy. So we'll add that to the stream of positives regarding the canopy. The question is, the building setback the same from the curb as Phase l? Al-Jeff: Yes it is. Erhart: We certainly don't want to have it any closer. You know I guess my feeling and I've probably stated it lO0 times up here is what we should do, unless there's a better plan coming, it sounds like there is on West 78th Street. I couldn't agree with Ladd more. We've got to do something. And without getting into it, the easiest would be just to get rid of the center median and put a third middle lane where ~eople could turn. You know which is a turning lane. Get rid of 'the center median completely and it solves all these problems because really, quite frankly if you're going to make a curb cut, as Ladd said, you'd make it under the canopy and eliminate the curb cut between the Riveria and the west end of the building. So I don't know. Krauss: 7Sth Street is going to be modified a little bit and it's going to be extended. Strgar-Roscoe who's doing work for 'us has proposed some modifications to make turning movements more adaptable there and at Great Plains to fix the intersection there. Long term, in fact not very long term given the speed at which things are happening, they're telling us that we're going to have to widen that .out to, we've got 16 foot lanes now. We're going to need the added lane width probably on the outside to get a full two lanes in each direction. As far as'the appropriate place for the full median cut, yeah. I agree that that situation back there is somewhat confused and a compromise. The Riveria wanted their curb cut. The Frontier Center didn't want to lose theirs. The one curb cut that we have there serves both north and south sides equally well of that curb' cut. It is kind of messy but that was a design that evolved after several years of effort and the City actually owned all those parkin~ lots. We built them. Erhart: I kind of find it humorous because people always talk about how scarey it is to drive on TH ~0~. I live down on TH lOl and there's only one thing that scares me in this city and that's trying to cross West 78th Street at Market 8oulevard. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 15 Krauss: Well that's true and the Council's already authorized the signals to go in. Erhart: That's great. Conrad: Paul, I don't understand. Even looking at this. 'If we care about the...of this building, there could be a lot more people here or over there. Look at what we're having them doing. They're coming in here and around there and then we have them make a 180 degree turn to back here. Some of that stuff just doesn't look right. You know, it's just not well, that's not how we should be pushing people around. don't know the other alternatives but that's not efficient and in the same center we're pushing, they have to go all the way down through the stop sign. Well, if they hit the Riv and they know how to turn, and they know how ~o go thr~.ough the parking lot. See what we're doing is we're pushing people through a restaurant parking lot and then we get them into the medical professional center parking lot. You know, geez. Erhart: My turn again? Conrad: I 'm sorry. Batzli: He got that off his chest. Erhart: It would seem to me the' simplest, moving on to signs. It seems to me the simplest is just adapt the same signage agreement that we spent so much time on in Phase 1. I'd just offer that as a simple solution. I would agree with the applicant that we should allow one side per sign. I also agree that it doesn't seem, I just can't imagine a illuminated sign, neon lighted sign effecting someone in that apartment building. Maybe I'm not naive about that but secondly is the other building does allow it, correct Sharmin? Illuminated north side signs. Phase 1. It was allowed. Al-Jarl: I don't know. Erhart: Do you know? Bob Copeland: It is allowed and there are two. Erhart: And lastly, if it doesn't make any difference and the applicant wants to see it read, comply with'current city ordinance, I don't, I guess everybody seems to be agreeable to that. If it makes the applicant more comfortable. And that was it. 8atzli: Why do you want to give them what Phase i had for signage when none of us liked it and really one of the few reasons'we gave it to them was that we were bushwhacked by an oversight from prior staff? Erhart: Well I'll have to look back here but actually I think I liked it. Now I'm trying to remember how that all went. I remember we had discussion one night. I didn't like the original signage which were all the light color and then there was one that 'came on that was gold. guess i'f I remember right, and I think Ladd and I agree that we should Planning Commission Meeting September 2, !992 - Page 16 not have allowed the sign on the front of the, what do you call it? The porch or whatever. That's where I think we ended up saying. The mistake was not, we should never allowed signs on that porch. A1-Jaff: Dormers. Erhart: Dormers. What you call the dormer areas. They were fine in the background but what really made them ugly was on the dormers and maybe that's the area we ought to look at. 8atzli: You don't mind the signs that are currently that building? Erhart: The ones'that are on the main part of the building, I actually like the logos and the color. Batzlt: Do you? Erhart: Yeah. Better than what we saw a year ago. Just these gold stamped letters that looked like something out of, you know you go down to Target and, everybody's turning now. Ladd, don't look at me that way. Farmakes: I've always had a problem, not with the signs but with, as I said before in my statement, the content of the building. I think it's a mish mash and I think the purpose of, you have to admit anyway that there are a lot of professional buildings and a lot of office buildings that do not have signage. And again, allows for some diversity and this thing is kind of an apparition. It's kind of retail but it says it's an office and professional. I don't think the signage enhances the building in any way, shape or form. But it obviously enhances communication of potential customers for the business. $o it's serving it's purpose. I have no problem with it being consistent. That's a consistent development. Batzli: Well but, if you're trying to direct the type, well there's two issues. One is, are we trying to make this one look like .the other one so we should let that kind of sign...in there just to make it look consistent? Second issue is, if you really want to direct the type of tenant that's going to go in there, you know the more retail oriented thi.ngs are going to want the neon lights. Whatever and the more "professional" type things, they might not care if it's neon. Farmakes= Is that not what the building has been approved at? Batzli: I don't know that we approved what. Farmakes: Well, if you offer them office and retail, according to the market that's been developing here, it's becoming retail.' They obviously want retail signage and they want to be open after 5:00. So I mean that's where the direction's leading. Batzli: Right. But did we approve it as retail? Farmakes: Well, you're getting back to what we discussed then in Phase 1. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page i7 Batzli: But I never envisioned this as retail· I viewed it more as office. Professional office services. Conrad: Office services, yeah. And as talked about then, it's a matter of, whether service or retail, you can accomplish the same thing with the signs. 8ringing traffic in. The question is how well do you do it and we sure fought that one the last time through. Farmakes: We were mixed however. If left up. to the market, what you're doing is visually you're going to get-all retail· So you lose any diversity you might have from having business within and having a professional. · · Conrad: I don't know. I don't know. Erhart: What do you mean? Conrad: If I had a service business, I'd put it there and I'd say, this is a plus to have a sign out on a high traffic area. Farmakes: Well, there are some professionals that are going into Eden Prairie Mall. Dentist, for instance. They want to be in a mall setting. That's what they want. They want to be a retail setting. And there are other people who want to be in a professional building. Somebody accesses their business, they don't want to come by with 15~ off in the window. So it's 3ust a question of what it is. I'm not positive for it one way or the other. It seems to me that what we've got here is'sort of an either or. Batzli: But you still would...the size. Farmakes: I think the cat's out of the bag. I think if you're, going to be consistent in the building, we should be consistent with what Phase is. Especially if there's a canopy there. Basically what you've got is one building.. One development. Satzli: Phase 1 differed a little bit in that it's internally accessed and there was some sort of prohibition about the number of signs that it had I thought. Al-Jarl: There's a limit of 7 signs on Phase I on the south side of the building versus there's no limit on this one. - Krauss: In trying to echo Jeff's comments. That was our position initially that this was an internally accessed, two story professional building. You go down to the Southdale Professional Building and it's full of doctors. It doesn't have signs all over it. Now, they made the point that this is a mix type of building. Rightly or Wrongly, that was what was approved there· 8ut whatever we thought with that,'the single story building is probably a lot more clearly retail oriented by design. Batzll: What kind of retail are y~u talking about? When you say retail, what are you envisioning? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 18 Krauss: I don't know. I mean I can tell you what I'm envisioning but maybe it'd be more important to see what 8ob is, but maybe you want to have a Xerox printing store in there. Maybe it will be a chiropracter's office. I mean I think you can conceiveably have a mix that's-not too much different than Town Square. ~nother Travel ~gent. We've already heard that there's going to be some professional office space in there. Those kinds of uses are very adaptable these days. Batzli: Yeah, and like those types of uses would, want those kinds of signs. Travel agent, a copy center, those kinds of things. Farmakes: Sure, posters in the window.. Fly to Jamaica. Batzli: I'd like to see the canopy constructed, although I don't know that I agree with Ladd's comment that we're not paying for it. Conrad: I didn't mean that. I maid I was not paying for it. Well, yeah. Batzli': We're all paying for it aren't we? Conrad: Yeah. See my comment WaSh meant, I had nothing financially motivating it one way or the other.' If it's coming out of my pocket, then I might be concerned. Batzli: I think it's coming out of all of our pockets. Krauss: I know that Mr. Copeland's position that the HRR would pay for it. ! have no reason to dispute that but ! don't know that to be fact or not. I assume, it's part of the HRR's agreement. Farmakes: Would there be signage on the canopy? Krauss: No. Farmakes: So you have'some sort of thing worked out with that originally? Krauss: There was no, the signage was allocated by tenant space. There's no tenant space. Conrad: Eastbound traffic enter here. Batzli: We had discussions originally about whether fire trucks and the like could fit underneath the canopy and whether this was, whether a center island could go in there. Whether the fire trucks could manage that. Rll that kind of good stuff. Have we looked at it in view of having a canopy on here so that we're, not approving something that's going to burn down and our trucks sit out on the road watching it? Krauss: Well again, that's not an issue that I,m particularly familiar with but it sounds like your desire is to carry forward a recommendation that the canopy be considered and we can certainly have our Fire Marshall make sure the turn radii are acceptable. Honestly, one of the reasons Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 19 why we're going to be modifying a little bit the turn radii, on 78th Street is our fire trucks are having trouble negotiating. So yeah, we think that it can be done but it's got to be done right. And throw it at the curb cut has to be wide enough. Batzli: I guess for the life of me, I don't know why-they'd be driving underneath a burning wooden building. Come to think of it. Okay. The signs, I don't like but I'm never going-to get rid of them. I think the temporary real estate sign, they should have whatever they're allowed to have. I don't necessarily like the illumination to the north but if we're going to give them on the south, I don't see why, I don't see the' distinction unless these are going to be so bright that they would bother the residents across the parking lot. And I want to make sure that the staff reviews the Minutes from the-meeting when we discussed people traversing this parking lot. There were a lot of safety concerns given the routing of the traffic through the back end of the lot. And there was talk about where we put the sidewalks. How to get people through there and I want staff to go back and look at that stuff So we don't have to recreate the wheel here to make they're addressing those concerns. Safety issue through this parking lot, given the fact we're driving everybody through the Riv, then along the back of the building, there are going to be people moving along the back of the building at a relatively high speed and that has to be addressed. Those are my comments. there a motion? Conrad: Sure. I make a motion that the Planning Commission approval Site Plan Review #88-17 as shown on the sits'plan dated August 3, 1992 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. On point number 2, instead of eliminate sidewalks between the parking stalls, we will substitute, the applicant will eliminate four striped areas or the appropriate number of parking spaces to...the parking situation into compliance with staff recommendation. Everything stands through 5, 6, 7, 8. Batzli: Do you want to modify 5? Conrad: No. Yeah. The City recommendation that a canopy connect the two phases for point number 5. Under point number 9(a)(3), change the requirement that the tenant may have .one sign per side. Number 9(a)(4), based on what I heard here. That we will allow the north signage to be illuminated unless staff can present a stop strong argument against it. Under 9(b), stands. 9(c), to allow the current ordinance and it's restrictions to apply to the general signage for real estate signage. And point number 2. The staff should review the traffic movement within the Riveria and the professional building as well as traffic movement along 78th Street to make sure that it's appropriate for Chanhassen in the long run. Erhart: I'll second it. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Farmakes: I have a question on 3. Under the sign covenant, page 7. You said on four sides of the building. Does 'that mean that.one now is two Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 20 or three sides? Conrad: Are there three? Farmakes: Yeah, I thought we. Conrad: I said one side. Okay. Farmakes'. Conrad: There's four sides to the building. Good point. The intent ts to have no more than two signs. Al-Jarl: That's good. A tenant may have no more than two Signs. Farmakes: What about the illumination? Is that being dropped? Batzli: Let me ask the question on the number of tenants. Currently this is being built out for 6 tenants. If you split some of these spaces and we limit it to the tenants rather than the size of the building, just by way of example. Let's say you put a wall through the middle of one of these spots and you rented out one to each side. Would you want to have each tenant having a sign on both sides of the building? Conrad: Ah boy. That's a real good point Brian and we struggled ~'ith that on the first phase. Farmakes: $ignage to the north and south. Batzli: Could Ne limit it to no more than 12 signs maximum? Conrad: I don't know how to address that. Yeah, we don't want it over signed obviously. Farmakes= You can limit the numeric by eliminating the signage to the north and south. Batztli: 6 signs. - Farmakes: No more than 2 signs per, rather than say side, say no more than 2 signs per tenant. That will limit them correct to a sign to the north and the south. Conrad: But still they could potentially chop that building up. I don't think that's realistic but potentially they could chop it up to put a sign every. Farmakes: Well they can have up to. If they're a major tenant and they go through to the back, but I mean the idea being is that someone can access the business to the back and see that it's there. If it's a different business, well then the point is made. eut I don't know how you'd limit how many tenants there are to the building, I mean other than fire code. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 21 Batzli: Well, if you're trying to make it look like the other building though, which is what I thought was one of our intents here, you don't want to have 15 signs on the front, and 15 signs on the back. If that's how many tenants there end up being. The applicant will probably tell me that's not realistic but if we're trying to keep the stgnage looking similar to tie the buildings together then. Farmakes: There's a height restriction. You should get a similar density to the signage as you would in the other building. Unless somebody took several lower units. They have a height limit on the signage so that would limit the size of the sign. Batzli: What's going to drive it is the tenant and the management. I want a sign or I'm not moving in kind of a thing and if they can do it, they'll put it up. Farmakes: Right. But your concern'is that there be too many. Not that there be too few, correct? .. Batzli: Right. I would jus[' limit it to 6 signs per side of the building. Conrad: Does that work? Bob Copeland: Well, we have 7 on'the south side of Phase Farms kes-' Same width? Bob Copeland: The building is the same. Conrad: That makes a maximum of 14. Batzli: Conrad: That would at least make it look similar. · I'm not trying to do that.. I'm just, I don't care. Batzli: You don't want it over signed? Conrad: Yeah, that's right. But I don't-know how to deal with that. Farmakes: The City Council can screw around with that. Batzli: Put it in there, 14. - Conrad: So I'd amend under 9(a)(3) that a tenant may have no more than two signs with the building having a maximum of 14 tenant signs. Batzli: Who seconded that, do you know? Farmakes: are we restricting signage to the north and south face of the building? Batzli: We haven't so far I don't think. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 22 Al-Jaff: Do you restrict 7 to the north and 7 to the south? Conrad: Well, they're not going to put it under the canopy. I don't think anybody's going to put it on-the east· Farmakes: You're seeing a use like a Subway over here on Market. You're seeing two signs on the corner of the building and wrapped. We get two signs right next to each other identical. Conrad: Yeah, I guess I would restrict it to the north and the south". How about you Tim? Erhart: I thought that was'in the staff report, so Just add it to this. Bob Copeland: It already says that it's... Farmakes: The amendment though was referring to the sides of the building. Batzli: Any more discussion? Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that lthe Planning Commissfon recommend approval of Site Plan Review ~-17 a8 8horn on the site plan dated August 3, 1992, subject to the follo~ing conditions= No restaurant may be located in the western one-half of the Phase II building. 2. Revise architectural plans as follows= a · The applicant will eliminate four striped areas or the appropriate number of parking spaces to bring it into compliance with staff's recommendation. b. Eliminate the public access door on the north face of the building within the 20 feet of the west endlof the structure. c. Provide more detail on the roof line. 3. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 4. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West"78th Street. 5. A canopy shall be built to connect the two phases of the Medical Arts Building· 6. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated 'August 1992. · Amend the Development Contract between the HRA and Chanhassen Medical Arts Limited Partnership to allow a public access door on the south face of the building within the 20 feet of the west end of the structure. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 23 8. RI1HVRC equipment placed on the ground must be screened with landscaping· .. 9. Sign covenants shall meet the following criteria: a. Wall Mounted Signs: Signs are only allowed within a continuous 2'2" high band - near the roof line on the north and south sides of the building, including.the projections over entries. Signs shall be attached directly to the building siding and not project above or below the designated sign area. 2. ~11 signs shall be comprised of individual letters and/or logos. Letters shall not exceed 12" in height and'logos shall not exceed 24' in height. · R tenant may have no mote than two signs ~ith the building having a maximum of 14 signs total on the north and-south sides. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name oT service offered. · Signs on the north elevation shall be illuminated, unless staff can present a strong argument against it. Signs on the south side shall be illuminated. b. Free Standing Signs= i · Monument Sign: One Single Sided monment sign for building identification (not tenant identification) may be placed in the southwest yard between the building and the sidewalk. The top of the sign may not exceed 4 feet in height. The dimensions of the sign may not exceed 2 feet heigh by 14 feet wide. The copy shall have a maximum height of one foot and be internally illuminated. c. General: I · One non-illuminated temporary real estate which advertise sale of the building or space for lease ~tthin the building must'meet the City's current sign ordinance requirements. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site· 3. Stop sign shall be installed at the exit point proposed on West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: ~nd this goes to the City Council September 2$th as well. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page-24 PUBLIC H~ARZN~-' NON-CONFORM[H~ USC pERflIT FOR A RECl~ATIO~L BE~HLOT. FOR HIN~~T~ S~ES HOMEC~dNERS ~SSOCZRTION. Public Present: Name Mary Jo Moore 3san Wood Pamela W. Illies 3231 Dartmouth Drive 6341 Cypress 6221 Cypress Kate Aanenson presented the'staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order. lean Wood: My name is 3san Wood and I live at 6341 Cypress Drive. On your map it's marked Dartmouth but it is nonetheless, we call it Cypress. Kate has stated very clearly our request. Where we do have some historical points I think to point out is on the 7 boats that sit on the boat rack which is located at the head of our marina. You really can't see it but it's a series of posts. About 30 feet long and like I said, there's room for probably, or as the City noted, 7 boats. We have no history in our Minutes as far as whether they were motorized or not motorized to be quite frank so I approached the Chair. The Chairman of the committee who oversaw the dredging and the building of the boat rack about what was the history about that running-from the'installation in '77 thru '81. He said that there have been over the years small boats, including small boats with motors and he identified them as being motors no larger than 15 horsepower. He said that most motored boats only stayed there for a few days and the motors are taken away, simply because we have had three incidents, and I can't tell you when these incidents were, of motors being stolen from the rack. And so basically they stay down there only for a few hours or a couple of days. It's not a storage rack for motorized for the entire season. That's not our-.tradition. And so what we would ask is that in your recommendation that you do give us some leeway or some flexibility for small 15 bp motors to be down there. Are there any other questions about the plan or the history? I had to delve into this in great detail so I know all kinds of. things now. 8atzli: You're bursting to tell us? 3ean Wood: No. No. Batzli: Okay, does anybody have any questions? This is a public hearing. We may have some questions for 'you a little later. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore, Dartmouth Drive, Excelsior. I'm on the lake. I have lakeshore property but I am a member of'this association. Have been on and off for the 12 years since 1980. We have definitely researched and proved that there'18 boats in 1981. This is one association that has not grown. I've been here many times with others that have expanded on their dockage and their boats. It's a very maintained property. It's 2 or 3 acres, as Kate pointed out. I'm in a Planning Commission Meeting September 2, i992 - Page 25 little bit of a bad position here because in 19811 was secretarym treasurer of the association and ! happen to be this year also. However, I disagree with the association on the boats that are on the head of the marina. There were no motorized boats there, I kept a non-motorized rowboat and a canoe there and my recollection was that there was one other non-motorized boat there at the time. So I wouldn't want to see that expanded because if you put a 15 bp, I mean you could wind up with some pretty large fishing boats and that sort of stuff and it would grow too much. So I'm in kind of a bad position, on this one guys but my recollection, and I was secretary-treasurer at the time, was that there were no motorized boats there. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Pamela lilies: Pamela Illies, 6221 Cypress Drive. i,m also an homeowners association member. My husband and I have lived at that address since August of 1980. My recollection of the time in question, 1980-1981 up until present date is that the site at the head of the marina which is being called a storage area, is really more a temporary pull your boat up on here to do minor repairs. Leave it for the day while you go home and have lunch and go back out to go fishing. I have at various times in the 12 years I've lived there seen small motorized boats that have been pulled up in that area. Whether they've been pulled up there and left for a longer period of time than a day or two, I can't say. Batzli: Could you point one thing out for me before you sit down? Can you show on the map where the raft is normally located? Pamela Illies: Yeah, the raft is right here~ 8atzli: Okay, that's for the non-motorized boats. Pamela Illies: It's about 30 feet. 8atzli: Okay. How about the swimming raft? Pamela Illies: The swimming raft? Satzli: Yeah. Pamela Illies: The swimming raft is normally set on the side here I believe. Isn't that pulled over on the side here and then it's for storage and then it's brought up to approximately this location. 8atzli: Right out in front.of the mouth of the. Pamela Illies: Right, that's correct. Mary Jo Moore: There hasn't been a swimming raft in, well there was one in '81 but there hasn't been there since. There really isn't any swimming... Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 26 Pamela lilies: Yeah, the swimming raft is a portable raft and I don't think it's even in existence at this point. Batzii: You've requested one in this application though. Pamela Illies: We'd like to be able to put it out again. Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: We don't have our Lake Minnewashta person here. Jeff, go ahead. Farmakes: I guess I'm a fairly, do you have an explanation as to why the inventory differs so much from the request? For instance, boats moored. It says no, no, no. And these ladies are saying.that there are boats moored there. Aanenson: No, moored would be if they're anchored out into the water. Farmakes: Okay, boats docked. Aanenson: That's how we're interpretting that. Farmakes: Okay, so boats docked. There's tO and then there's 18. 'I'm sorry, l'm on the wrong line. Are you comfortable with the documentation that you had with 12 in '817 They obviously differ here so what? Aanenson: The evidence of the letters that they provided to say that other people that have, that's provided for you to make that - interpretation but from what I've read, it seems like it's legit. I-mean obviously who did the inventory. Farmakes: There might have been 6 boats out on the lake. Aanenson: Exactly. The person that did the inventory made a note that there was space for 20, whatever that means but it seemed like there was a capability of having that many boats on the water at that time. Farmakes: The number I have on my sheet here now says 9, on seasonal docks. Or excuse me, 8. There are 9'you say? Aanenson: That's how many they would like, yes. Farmakes: Okay, so is that, you had more docks and you hadn't put them out that year or what is the? Jean Wood: No. According to the inventory...showed'lO. What we're just claiming is 9 and what we're saying is that the 10th dock is not'put out. Farmakes: So right now currently there's 9, not 8 correct? It says 8 in my packet here. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 27 8atzli: Aanenson: Batzli: As of June, 1991. Our survey showed that there was S. In 1991 or '817 '91, correct. Mary 30 Moore: There was one dock that was temporary, voted on by the association on an annual basis. Jean Wood. That was not put in. And it was not put in. Mary Jo Moore: It was in in '$1 but not in this year. Farmakes: Is it common to have a swimming raft when you don't have a swimming beach? Pamela Illies: If you want swimming you have to have either a raft or a beach, you know. Farmakes: 8ut I mean the issue is, do you promote swimming there? Pamela Illies: No. No. Farmakes: So the purpose of'a swimming raft is, if you don't promote swimming is what? Mary 3o Moore: The raft hasn't been there for l0 years actually. Farmakes: It shows that the raft's been there since '81. I was just curious to know because you don't have a swimming beach- listed.there. Pamela Illies: The raft was there in the early 1980's because there were families with teenage children. That situation no longer exists. Families with children have younger children now. We'd like permission for a swimming raft so that in 5 or 6 years when my daughter is a teenager, if they want to put a swimming raft out there so our kids are not going...to swim, we'd like the capability of putting it out there. So we would just petition the City Council to not tell us we can't have one...to be able to put it out again when we have children that would like to use it. Farmakes: We're not really discussing that here. Whether you can or can't. What we're discussing here is what you had in '$1 and that it's not expanded and we're trying to be consistent with all the. Jean Wood: Correct, we had it in Pamela Illies: We had it. Farmakes: That's what I said. I was just curious to know what you had planned there because there was no beach. I guess I would support the issue of limiting boats on the storage so that's not abused. Maybe clarify that. Other than that I don't see where they're being Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 28 inconsistent on what they had .... marina and this is not what we have been see£ng from some of the other appIicants. I have no other comments. Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: I had a question for the association there. How many pelts or docks are there right now out? As of this date. Jean Wood: As of this day we have 7 out. Ledvina: 7 as of today. Jean Wood: 7 as of today. Ledvina: Okay, because I may have miscounted but I took a drive by there today and I beIieve I counted 6. 4 on one side and 2 on the other side, Is that correct? Pamela Illies: My raft is there. It's laying on.the side and hasn't been put out there, Ledvina: Okay. Will it put out this year? Pamela Illies: Pardon? Ledvina: Will that be put out this year? Pamela Illies: Not this year it won't, no. Batzli= I thought I was late. Pamela Illies= There was a change because of the weather last year and a lot of docks poles being actually destroyed by. ice so every association member, at our last meeting, chose to change the type of dock and we had to actually destroy our...docks and purchase new docks for the area. And it took a few of us a little bit longer to get our financial act together. Ledvina: Okay, what's the minimum number of docks that have been put out in this location? Jean Wood: Minimum? Ledvlna: Yeah. Jean Wood: Minimum number? Ledvina: Right. Jean Wood: I guess what's out now which would be. Ledvina= The 6 docks. Jean Wood: 6. I miscounted. 6. _ Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 29 Ledvina: Okay. I guess I.talked to Kate about this issue a little bit- and I guess it's my understanding that what we're trying to do is verify our grandfathering conditions and as it relates to grandfathering, if the use is decreased or if that use has ceased and as a grandfathering status, that they're not allowed to go back to an increased level. $o do you want to comment on that a little bit Kate? Aanenson-' Well, I think the gest of that is correct'. I think this is an anomaly again because of the number of piers. Normally most of the beachlots would put it out every, their one-dock every year. 'But that's the way we interpret it. If it goes beyond a year and they haven't put their dock in., then the grandfathering right would go. We haven't even established a level of use yet on this one so I don't know. [ didn't go out and inventory it this year. ! can guarantee you next year after we've got all these permits in place, staff is going to go out every year. Maybe it needs to be over the 4th of July weekend if that's the peak of the summer and determine whether or not they're in compliance and we're going to do that. But I'm not sure, we haven't even approved the level of use yet at this beachlot to say whether or not they're, I think that's a question for Roger Knutson to see if he feels that's something we want to look at and say 6, if that's what you're getting to. Ledvina: Right. It's generally 2 boats per dock, is that correct? Jean Wood: Correct. Ledvina: Okay, and you're saying that in ail of the years there were at least 8, is that correct? Jean Wood: At least 8 docks out? Ledvina: Right. Jean Wood: Normally at least 8 docks out and a 9th was out in the'early 1980's. And this past year, as we have changed our docks over, like she said, some got bought a little later and are not in yet. Ledvina: $o will those docks go in this year? Pamela Illies: They may not go in this year. They're planning to do it next year for sure. I mean ours is purchased and it's laying there. It's a shared dock situation so the other householder, we said we'll buy it, you put it in. He didn't put it in yet. Jean Wood: He also underwent triple by-pass surgery. It's an older couple. Ledvina: Well this is kind of a tough issue because there's, we've heard many or a lot of testimony about the use of, the overuse of Lake Minnewashta and the number of boats on the lake and such and if we can support, if this grandfathering situation is such that now we've decreased the use to 6 docks, maybe that represents the prudent limitation that we should take on this particular lake. I don't know. I guess I don't really have a strong feeling on it at this point but I Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page $0 think we should look at that as a commission and see if that's a'viable thing that we should do as part of the provisions for grandfathering, so. I just wanted to raise that issue. Otherwise, the other items that were requested, I guess I would support that the storage area be for non-motorized use boats only and other than that, no other comments on the application. Batzli: By non-motorized you mean you have to take the motor off it before you store it? Ledvina: Right. 8atzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: I agree with 18 boats and 7 non-motorized. And Matt, you know I buy some of what you're saying. I don't know that we've applied it to any other beachlot. Therefore, I'm not picking up on what you're saying. There's some logic there but we really haven't used it. If we use that same logic. We haven't used the boats per dock logic on anything we've done. We're not using boats per riparian lot. There's a lot of things we're not using which should be used because that regulates intensity. That's the point of the ordinance but in this exercise, we're not using it. We're establishing 198! and therefore, I don't know where to go with your comments. Ledvina: Well, it's just that let's say they had kind of, and let's go to the extreme situation. Let's say they had abandoned all use of the beachlot for 10 years and then ail of a sudden this .year they went out and put in lO docks and where would we be on that issue. Conrad: All we're doing is establishing '81 level. Batzli: The original intent was'to keep the intensity from increasing over the level that it was at in the first instance when the City had adequate records, which was 'Si. You raise kind of like a law school exam question. Well, what do you do about it? We haven't been doing that. We haven't been applying that. The one we looked at a couple of weeks ago where they had 20 boats or whatever it was on one dock, if you look at that from year to year, there were some boats missing from that dock each year but we didn't, the fact .that they were able to trot out different years of we always had at least this many boats and up to Okay, you've got 18. - Ledvina: Well they demonstrated the use every year. There was never a fluctuating use that I saw. · '\ Batzli: Well there was, in the number of boats each year. Ledvina: Well, the number of slips have essentially remained constant. That's the way I saw it anyway but. Farmakes: Isn't the general intent of what the useage was, and that it's not expanded. We're not requiring that everybody put their boats in by a certain date and take them off by a certain date. And that these checks Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 31 are done at the same interval under the same conditions so. It seems unreasonable to assume that somebody might not take their boat. Take it boating somewhere else for, or have it out on the lake when the study's being taken and it seems that they demonstrated here, by the City"s own statement that they had 10 docks and that you figure 2 boats per dock, that's 20 boats. That's '81 so. Ledvina: I understand the rationaIe that's being discussed here but I think there's a whole concept of grandfathertng. I see that when you say that something's grandfathered, you allow that use but then over time, you assume that will go away based on a changing situation. I think am I wrong about that? Batzli= Well that's fairly accurate but if you look for example at their seasonal docks, we have three different inventories here. '81, '86 and '91 and they're fairly constant. I don't think we can say thet they've lost something based on one season of use that isn't done yet, and especially. Ledvina: Right, I know. I'm not saying that.the season is done-and maybe they will put those docks=in and get 9'docks but I guess it's kind of a grandfathering philosophy and maybe, you're saying it doesn't apply to this situation. Farmakes: If you boat, you know that sometimes the boat nee.ds repair. Sometimes it's very expensive. Sometimes you take it out for the season. Sometimes the dock needs repair. Things don't always, like I said, you don't put it in in May and take it out in September. Sometimes there's some variance there. As I said, I think the City's own study shows that the variance has been pretty slight. Batzli: On a philosophical level, I agree with you but I don't know that we've done that to the other applicants on this situation. And I think that's kind of what Ladd has said. It was philosophically you may be right but we haven't looked at it that critically at the other ones so much as we tried to establish the maximum use that they had in '81 so that they couldn't exceed that. Ledvina: I guess when this whole issue was described to'me, it was described as a grandfathering situation and maybe it's something different. Batzli: Well I think we all assumed that use on the lake intensified over time so we were going to cut them back to what they had in '81. I don't think anyone ever envisioned that the use had decreased since that time. Ledvina: Right. Well I agree. Satzli: Forgive us. We're getting philosopical up here a little bit. Ledvina: Okay, well again I'll take that approach but. I just wanted to, it was described a little differently and if that's the way we're doing Planning Commission Meeting September 2, i992 - Page 32 it, then again ! can reconsider and look at the request as it exists and see that that's reasonable. Batzli: Ladd, did you have anything else? Okay. Erhart: Kate how does, we have this lying boats on land on the other forms? On the other beachlots, do we have a line called boats on land. Was that on the? Aanenson.' Pleasant Acres had it too. Erhart: Okay, so we allowed boats on land? Aanenson: Well, ! think what you did on Pleasant Acres is you took some of the boats away from-the dock and allowed those on land to be counted because they also had a canoe rack too. $o I think you combined those two. ~ E. rhart: Does the boats on land include the canoe rack generally? Aanenson: No, they've been separate. Erhart: They've been separate so we put provisions in that. state that it cannot be motorized in the past or have we not addressed that? Aanenson: Well I think the only otheT instance I can recall that we've done is Pleasant Acres and that they've had, I think they had 5 we allowed them. We counted that towards our total of 14. Erhart: So those could be motorized? Aanenson: Correct. But then they specifically had canoe racks and our ordinance says those are non-motorized. Erhart: Right. I guess my feeling on these boats on land, I mean any, if I'm wrong. Any beach you can pull up a boat on land and walk down the street and go have lunch. I'm not sure that this really, I'm not even sure it's worth talking about to be honest here. To me it: there's 7 boats on land, if that's what they want, that's f-ina with me. Farmakes: Isn't storage considered overnight? Erhart: The impression I got is that they don't really leave them there with the motors on. The motors disappear. Or am I wrong? Batzli: No, I think that's what. I think what they said though was that there were several that are kept'there overnight on a continuous basis and there are others that show up and disappear-as people use them for a day or a week. Erhart: Do we stop other recreat'ional beachlot users from doing that? Do we have anything in our code that disallows that? Not really. .. Batzli: I don't know if that's storage or not. Do we regulate storage? Planning Commission Heating September 2, [992 - Page 33 Aanenson= Well if it's at the beachlot. I mean yeah. I think we say that you can only have two canoe racks, you can only have so many boats at the beachlot and those are counting towards the to.tel number of boats which makes 25. And basically in 5 years from now, if they still have 25 but they have a different look that they're pulling up, how do we regulate that? [ just want when [ go out next year or-two years from now. Erhart: Okay, so we're regulating total number of boats, not jbet number of spots on their dock for a boat? Aanenson= Well the ordinance says you can only have canoe racks. So this doesn't fall into a category so what we're trying to do is establish so when someone goes out there to look at this in 5 years, what was the intent of this and that's what we're trying to clarify in the permitting process. What is our intent? We're trying to make it as clear as possible so when we go out later we know exactly what was meant. That's really the intent. It's not addressed in the ordinance. Erhart: Okay, 7 boats on land. Wasn't there one other one where we talked about the swimming raft being a concern about safety when it was in the line of boat traffic? Aanenson: Several. Erhart: What did we do in those? Batzli= We required buoys ! think in some instances. Conrad-' We permitted them. Erhart: We permitted them but. Aanenson= ! think a lot of them are used for water-skiing purposes too. Erhart: ! just think we should just be consistent with what we've done. I think it is a safety issue but if we've allowed them on the other ones, then ! think that's what we ought to do. Was there a requirement 'for buoys, do you remember? Batzli: I thought we did. I thought we required buoys on at least. Aanenson-' Well the ordinance says if you have a swimming beach, it requires it to be buoyed off. As far as the raft, that discussion has come up a lot and they're usually out past where the swimming beach is. You know they have to be, the ordinance requires that they have to be marked with reflective anyway. If it's a device in the water. So that's how it's... ! Erhart: Well if that's consistent, then I guess I'm pretty much, I go along with what they're requesting. Batzli: Is that it? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 34 Erhart: Yep. Batzli= Nhat is this seaplane deal? They didn't ask for anything on the seaplane. Do they need anything, on a seaplane if they're going to keep it there? This '81, they had a seaplane there. Ts, that still there ever? No? Okay, good. [ would, in this Instance, approve the 9 piers. if ! can find my sheet. Non-motorized, 7 boats on land. ! guess total boats at the dock, [8. [ would prefer, on larger bodies of lakes, rafts are a little bit more regulated as far as 'how far out from the shore they can be. Things like that. ! don't know if we regulate that so much. My concern is not that the raft be marked because ! don't care if people hit that with a boat. Nhat ['m concerned about ts someone swimming from the shore out to the raft that gets hit by a boat that's pulling out. And rafts unfortunately for people in'their teerra, having once been in my teens, are a drawing magnet to swim out there at night. If you have people coming in and out at night and you're parking your raft Tight out in front, it's very dangerous. You're creating a very dangerous situation and that's what we're concerned about. And [ don°t know that we're going to tell you that you can't have a raft but before you say ! want to keep my kids close to go swimming, you may want them to be as far away as possible, I guess is what I'm trying to tell you. So 'having said that, is there a motion? Farmakes= Motorized? Batzli: I would say non-motorized boats on land. Now it's going to regulate itself because' they don't have 'a launch so I don't know why you'd park a big boat down there with a big motor. I really I guess you know, my father's had several motors stolen, over the years so I can't imagine anyone keeping their motor down there anyway. You buy the Sure Locks and they just hacksaw right through those. As long as they don't make too much racket anyway so. Is there a motion? Conrad: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend 'approval of the Minnewashta Shores Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit per their request allowing motor vehicle access, 4 off street parking, 9 piers, 7 non-motorized boats on land, 18 boats at dock. Batzli: Second. Any discussion? Conrad moved, Batzl! seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approve[ of the Mlnne~ashka Shore~ Non-Conforming Recreations! Beachlot permit per their request allo~tng motor vehicle acceam, 4 off street parking, 9 piers, 7 non-motorized boa~ on land, 18 boaL~ at dock. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: ~hen does this go to City Council? Do we know? Do we have a date? Aanenson: 28th · Planning Commission Meeting September 2, [992 - Page 35' PUBL[C HERRIN~: NON-CONFORHXN~ USE PERMIT FOR R R[CR~ATI_ON~L BE~OT FOR [_~([VIEN HILLS APRRTHENTS HOHEONNERS ~$SOCIATION. Public Pre~ent= Npme ~k:h'er~ Marge Anderson Donna Bohn Ray Luis John Bushey 6800 Lake'Riley Blvd. 9201 40 1/2 Ave Ho, New Hope 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie 8atzli: Kate, are we continuing the public hearing? Do-I have to open that again? Aanenson: I believe we closed that public hearing. We 'did commit~ to renotices and I believe that tha.t was done. I'm not sure if anybody's here. Batzli.' Okay, so this is a public hearing but it's a separate and new public hearing because we noticed it? Aanenson= Ne just noticed it for, if the people wanted to come and hear more information. I'm not sure it was not[ced as a public hearing. Batzli-' Okay, well I'm going to treat it as a public hearing for the time being. For Lakeview Hills Apartments, why don't you give us a staff report of what's happened. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Now, Just to clarify one point, our City Rttorney has suggested to us that we cannot make a condition of granting or moving this permit along, any kind of restriction on access to the beach or deny it because of the problems that they've had. The police problems. Aanenson= That's correct. What you're directed is to establish the level of use in 1981. Batzli= Okay. Is the applicant here? Are you the applicant? Marge Anderson: [°m not sure we ever had an applicant because we were never at any other meeting but I'm Marge Anderson and I'm the Assistant Manager on site all the time and I can state that'we very consistently, especially this year, have questioned people as they pull in, if we don't recognize them, saying this is-a private beach. You can't launch here. We've also put up signs that say, boats. Private property, no trespassing. Unauthorized boats and trailers will be towed at owners expense. And to my knowledge, and I've been d~n there quite a bit this year, and we have residents also helping us when they don't recognize somebody to say, you can't come in here. Where I've seen the boats come in is when I'm going around the other side of the lake past the public beach and boat launch area. Pioneer Trail has only no parking just So Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 36 far just beyond the appIe orchard and I see boats and trailers parked just beyond those signs. Like B, !0, 12 of them and I see people walking back towards and that's where the excess boats and I'd love to see fewer boats be out on the Iake because we reaIIy do try and controI it from. hakeview Hills. But that's on the Eden Prairie side and they don't think that we have much control over that. Yes, we have had some problems with a few parties. Ns'ye had to call the police. We've evicted a couple apartments of very young people that after talking with them, they Just wouldn't comply that we don"t want a party complex. We wanted a quiet, nice place for people to live so we've already, two of them are completely gone. Asked to leave. Whenever we see a problem like that, we don't want any wild parties down there. Ne don't want police problems. We just want it to be nice for everybody to live. I don't know what else to say. Batzli: If we have any questions, I'm sure we'll ask in a few moments. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? It's a public hearing, or at least I'm running it as one for the time being. Ray Luis: I'm Ray Luis. I'm at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd., across, the bay from the beachlot. At the last meeting ! expressed some concern about several issues. One of course was the noise. ! understand that we're not, that is a separate issue but the issue that ! still would like to address is the issue of the effect on-the lake that the boat launch ramp has. First of all, the DNR has created very strict rules about controlling potential spread of Eurasian .Milfoil by boat-trailers and the use of boat launch ramps and' by having.a launch ramp that's not controlled, it opens up the lake to additional hazard from uncontrolled' Eurasian Milfoil exposure. The other issue is the issue of erosion. I don't know if the ONR has standards on boat launch ramps but as I look at the boat launch ramp that's on the beachlot, I see a partly earth filled and partly gravel launch ramp that has strong evidence of erosion. Whenever a rain occurs, I.don't see anything to stop soil from eroding down into the lake and erosion is a known problem for keeping nutrient levels of the lake under control. So I'm very concerned about that and I think that in this particular case, the overall good of the lake, and the lake quality, is to be used by the public and supported by the.State, should be considered as a higher priority than the established right and I think it's purely a matter of convenience for the use of the launch ramp by the apartment dwellers. It's really not very much trouble to travel the quarter mile and use the launch ramp. The public launch ramp and that's what the rest of us do. And by doing that, I think we would take one more step to insure or help insure the quality of the lake. So I'd like to have that considered as the permit review process takes place. Batzli= Thank you. Aanenson: Can I make a'comment? ..;staff to look at having someone come out from the DNR to see if there's separate ordinances that, separate from the permitting process that they may not be meeting and we can certainly look at that. Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 37 John Bushey: I'm John Bushey. 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie and I live Just to the east of the beachlot in question. I have a couple questions. First of all, is the application also 1=or a boat launch? Is that included in what they're asking for? Batzlt: Yes. John Bushey: That is included. And the other things, as I understand it, are for 10 parking spaces ~or boats or 7 boats and 10 parked oars or something like that and then the-30 foot dock. ! guess I'd like to state that I agree with Ray Luis on the erosion issue.. I've been studying the erosion problem into Lake Riley and this is not the only place where it is a problem but the sediment load into the lake is very high and this is definitely a source if you go and take a look at it right now. You can see erosion down through the'gravel and into the soil. And it's not the type of location that shows any evidence of maintenance in that sense, other than Just dumping more dirt to be washed down in with the next rain. I don't have any problem at all with the request for a dock on the use of the beachlot. It seems like a'reasonable thing for the people who live in the apartments to have good use of the beach. I don't see a need for a boat launch there. I don't know, the question is the type of, is there any limitation on the type of boats that the 7 boats are supposed to be? Canoes or? Batzli: No. John Bushey: Any boats? 8atzli: Any boats. John Bushey: If you take a survey through the parking lot, I think you'll see a lot of trailers with, the parking lot of the apartments. Not ' the beachlot. You'll see a lot of trailers with boats and with, hold snowmobiles and the like and if that's going to be the appearance down there, as viewed from Lake Riley Road or Lake Riley Blvd. on each side of the city line, that's not a very attractive thing to be looking at is a bunch of boat trailers parked out there. And I think you should take that into consideration. Is there really a need to park boats on trailers a couple hundred yards closer to the lake than where they are already, particularly since you've got to drive down to use the trailer anyway. So why not just keep the trailers up the parking lot where they are now. I guess as suggestions, which seems like a reasonable thing to do is to go ahead and grant the use of-the dock and some limitation on the boat parking to canoes which are not easily transported. Or don't need trailers to transport anyway and keep the boat launch, close the boat launch to alleviate the erosion problem and make it a more pleasant swimming area anyway if you don't have launch'traffic going on there. So it seems like that might be a reasonable compromise for the use of the lot and good of the people on the lake. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Erhart moved, Le~ina ~econded to clo~e the public hearing. &Il voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as clo~ed. Planning Commission Heeting September 2, 1992 - Page 38 Erhart: I don't have any problem with any of the-'things requested there. would like to address the boat launc'h. Do we have any right at all to eveT close a private boat launch? Aanenson: That's what I was Just mentioned before. That's something that maybe we need to have the DNR go out and our staff too to look at, if there's eros[on and those sort of things, that we can address separately as far as a policing kind of a thing. 'They are, the boat launch is grandfathered'in but maybe there's other things we need to do to...that situation. Erhart: Weii okay. I think that's one of the questions...I'm not even sure if we even have the right to even regulate or to remove one. Aanenson: Well there's certain standards they have to meet,-certainly. Erhart: Well yeah, that's not what I'asked. Second thing is, I guess that's what I did ask. The second thing is that I agree, you know we have this storm water utility fund and all the committee meetings around and then the first thing we're trying to get a hold of is any erosion and so~ with regard to that, if there's erosion here, we really ought to go out and get a handle on that and then come back with some ways to control this thing. I'm not suggesting we eliminate it but I'm suggesting that if they're going to have it, we get a handle on what's going to be required to protect the city's water and the neighboring citizens. And it may apply to all private boat launch. I don't know how many private boat launches we've got in the city. That's it. Batzli: Do you feel comfortable that the applicant has demonstrated that they've always had parking of boats down on the beachlot itself? Enough to support that continued use. Erhart: Without any survey? How much are we expecting them to, I don't know. How do you expect them to supply? 8atzli: They haven't supplied anything. Erhart: Have we asked them to? Okay, we're not relying just.on our lack of a survey. Batzli: I'm not. I mean I think we've heard, there was tests, I .should say there was a fuzzy picture that somebody gave us that there was'a dock there. We know there was a dock there. We know there was a launch there, based on what we've heard from everybody coming in. I've never heard from anybody that there's always been storage of boats on the beachlot. Farmakes: If there was a launch there, why does it say no under 19917 Merge Anderson: We don't store the boats at night down on the lake. There's no parking... People have to remove their boats back behind our buildings after they're through boating...or whatever so we don't actually store them overnight down at the lake. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 39 Farmakes: How long have you had a boat launch there? Marge Anderson: Forever· Farmakes: So the inventory's mismarked? Aanenson: I did it in '91. I may have missed it when I was out looking SO. Donna Bohn: ...one of the residents...prtor to 1977 and...showed a dock and provided... Aanenson: They have it. Batzli: Yeah, we have that. The issue we're discussing is whether there has been boat storage on the beachlot. Donna Bohn: I think what we're talking about... . Batzli: So you wouldn't feel uncomfortable if we limited any boat storage to non-motorized boats down there? Donna Bohn= No. Marge Anderson: First of all...on a regular basis we don't have overnight boat storage. Donna Bohn: Any larger boats...stored behind the building. Batzli: Okay. I think that's what you were saying. That there's boats back in the apartment building parking lot right? I'm sorry, can you come forward and give us your name. Donna Bohn: My name is Donna Bohn and I am the property manager. And the loud parties that you have heard'about are not ail coming from Lakeview Hills. And while you have provided us with a police report, those are not all necessarily residents from our property. I understand from the police that they've had a major problem this past year at various lakes, not just Lake' Riley. We have a caretaker, several caretakers, two maintenance people, a manager, and assistant manager there. When we're notified of any of these happenings, we try to first go down there and break it up. Set the people out of there. If not, then the police are called but the idea there is this property has about 52 acres of land and several hundred feet of lakeshore. This particular part that they use for a launching is for their resident's use. Last year we put up a fence. We posted private parking. Violators would be towed. This year we put up another sign because last year the people that come off the street or maybe down the.road had torn it down. $o we are doing a lot of policing out there to try to keep this as an amenity for the people that we rent to. That's part of the reason that they drive out to Chanhassen to llve at this little property· It's affordable housing is what it is and we'd like to maintain that dock space and the ability of the residents to bring down a canoe or a fishing boat. They do a lot of fishing off of the dock too. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 40 Batzli: Thank you. Where were we? Tim, were you done? Okay,, Ladd. Conrad: I didn't even know he started. What did you say? Erhart: I said we ought to deal with the launch in terms of regulating it and maybe that ought to extend to the off street parking as well. Again, I'm not opposed to it but maybe in this situatfon where we're talking about apartment which is different.than all the rest, is it what was concerned here is that we in fact assure that there's a real effort made at this being used by the residents in terms of the parking and the dock and the launch and all that. Maybe we could write that in as an additional requirement so that we can go back later when it's not being done. Farmakes: A sticker or a gate or something? ' Erhart: Well, we just write it that they're required to assure that the facilities are...and then later on when it's not, then they have to perform whatever's required. Ledvina: That goes against the grade of what Kate said about as it relates to the attorney's opinion as to the use. Aanenson: I guess it's a police matter. I think we can go down there on an inventory. If we go down there and we look up license plates and we find out that they're not, then we send them a letter and they're in violation of the ordinance. If we do that enough times and they'll come up with some other method to make sure that it's controlled. Batzli: What ordinance are they in violation, of? I missed that. Aanenson: We're giving them a permit. They have to maintain that level of, we've given them a permit that said they can' do this. -Whatever you decide you're going to give 'them and if they've not followed that, then they're in violation of that permit. Batzli: Well let's say some people'come from Eden Prairie and some from Chaska and some from Lotus Lake and they launch their boat there and they park their car down the road. What ordinance have they violated? If they don't prosecute for trespassing, we have no control over that. Aanenson: I'll have to ask the City Attorney on how you do that. Batzli: What we were still suggesting, even though we're not supposed to be, is some level of control. Aanenson: I agree. Batzli: So your control mechanism doesn't help with at least what we were talking about. Aanenson: Yeah, we're back to the level of use and t'he only thing we can do is if they're not complying with that level of use. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 41 Batzli: But if, it seems to me that the level of use is limited to the residents of the apartment building and that would be a legitimate level of use because that, in theory your private beachlot is Just used by'the owners which, or in this case tenants. That may be a legitimate~ condition. Aanenson: well that's what I'm saying. Then they're in violation of the permitting process and then you'd send them a letter. Batzli: If we include that as a condition. Aanenson: I don't think you have to include it. I think it'd still be in violation but that would be up for Roger to say how we do. Batzli: So when you make the motion. Ladd. Conrad: The control is not good on the beachlot. And that concerns me a great deal. If only from the standpoint of checking for mllfoil but also in terms of unauthorized use and you can't tell me that the city and the police should be checking down there. And I don't think that management has the ability to provide constant checking. · So in my mind this is an uncontrolled beachlot. We may not be authorized to controlled it in this permitting process but we will have tO go back and look at the beachlot ordinance because it's Just not controlled the way access to a lake has to be controlled. And I'm not, you'd have to. live there next to the beachlot to control it, and you don't. And you can't be there at midnight so there's something missing and we have to find that solution. I don't really have a problem with what is being asked for, yet nothing's been proven to me that it Nas there in '81. There's no information that I have in my packet that tells me what it was used for. There was a little picture but I just have very little information to make a decision on it whereas all other non-conforming beachlots came in with a lot of information and they put some.energy into this and sometimes they sold more than what they really had rights to but they put some energy into it. I don't see that here. And again it.'s not to the point where I don't think you could run a beachlot with allowing the things that you're asking for because I think basically it's not abusive but it's not being managed properly and that's what concerns me right now. And I don't know how to solve that right now in terms of approving, well. The only thing I can say is, I don't know what has been approved or what was-there in '81 at this point in time. We don't have control on the beachlot. It's urgent in my mind, even though the season's over with that we somehow have to find a mechanism that allows lots like this, and all beachiots to have some control, especially when it's removed from, it has a distance away from really the people that it's for. Batzli: You ask a lot of good questions. Conrad: Again tonight we can table this because I still don't knoN enough to tell you the truth. That's not solving my real problem however. My real problem is we don't have any control on this beachlot. Zip. And I think the managers are saying they try, and I don't dispute that. I don't have any reason not to dispute that but the point is, it's impossible to control that lot unless you put some kind of controlling Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 42 device on it. And whether that's a keyed gate or something, we can't have cars going through there that potentiaIIy can have miIfoiI. We can't cars going through there that ave potentially not the residents of the Lakeview Apartments and until that happens, I'm Just not comfortable granting a permit. 8atzli: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: When we talked about this specific application about a month ago a question was asked, who's burden of proof is it as it relates to the use in 19817 We don't have any information. There was no survey done in 1981. We didn't know it existed apparently so we do have a shred of evidence that was supplied by Leo Ganglehoff and it says that there Nas a dock in 198t and that there has been a dock there since the day I moved in. Included is a photo of a dock in 1977. Ne also had discussion and testimony from some of the individuals, the public that attended and I distinctly recalling someone mentioned that that dock was used for a period of two years as someone's deck on their house. So I think that discussion would cast a big of a shadow of doubt on the information that's essentially the only shred of evidence that we have.' So going back to the theory that the association has to prove their case, I don't believe that there is any substantial evidence in this situation. I think there's also the concerns that have been raised previously with the uncontrolled activities there and-erosion'. The milfoil. Ail very serious issues. I guess at this point I think the, we tried to impress upon the association the need to provide the information and perhaps it doesn't exist. So ! would either be in favor of tabling this application or denying it on that basis. Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: I'm I guess a little confused about what we're supposed to be doing here tonight. It's my understanding, based on what I've read here and what I've heard the applicant say, that we've got to be consistent here as to how we're addressing this to the other beachlots, even though it's an apartment building. I don't think we were clarifying that there's any difference. This is a non-conforming recreational beachlot. The first thing that I look at here is, I don't think that our citizens are on trial here. I don't think they have to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a dock there. If the city staff is comfortable that there was some documentation to this, or taking.into account that the city didn't inventory this area. Perhaps there's something in the tax records Or something that there.was a developed beachlot there. It seems to me that some situation can.'..there as to what an established use Nas in 1981. It's not listed on here and the only thing I see here from the city is that they didn't inventory itI SO I think just as a pragmatic issue I think and some of the other evidence that we saw from some of the other' beachlots, I don't know if. it would stand up in a court of law or something and I'm not-lawyer but it would seem to me that for the most part we took some liberty with that, that they were telling us the truth. I agree with the 'issue of, if.we establish that issue and that we agree that that use was there in '81~ and that they're not asking or expanding whatever that use was, and that's clarified to where the staff is comfortable with that, then the Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 43 issue of the launch, certainly I agree with that. That it's uncontrolled and measures should be taken but I'm not sure that that's part of this. Of what we're looking at here. I thought what we're dealing with here is the expansion beyond '81 and there's so many different problems with the recreational beachlot or dredging out a marina or each one is sort of different and if we get into saying yes or no to the present day development, rather than looking at it as an expansion from '81, we're sort of getting away from what we've been doing. So what I'd like to do is to sum up, is to establish what the use was in '81 whets the City's comfortable with that and then deal ~ith any of these other you ~ant to table tha% and deal with that later, I have no p~obiem with that. Batzli: Do you think that we have. an acceptable evidence of what was on the beachlot in 19817 Farmakes: Presently, I think we have one photograph. However, the city has admitted that there may have been. They didn't inventory it. 'So unless they have, I'd say a reasonable case that there wasn't any there., they should sit down and try to come up either with something or take the position that comes up with a guesstimate as to what they can live with, both parties. Erhart: That's the point. Staff is not saying that there wasn't 10 off street parking lots in '81. · Farmakes: I would assume that taxation, whoever came and looked at the property every 6 years, has a figured use in there. If they have 120 feet of developed lakeshore, then you've got, you're getting taxed differently. Conrad: Yeah, but that won't tell you whether there were stalls for 10. Farmakes: Correct. Maybe there's neighbors. Maybe there's somebody, some more people other than this one photograph. Obviously it's a..little light. Erhart: Well I guess my view is, Brian if you don't feel that there were 10 parking spots, or if you want more research that needs to be done, I think staff should do that and just table it. Where there isn't much information here. I don't think it's left to us to be the research agent on this. Aanenson: I don't think it's the staff's position either. We haven't' done any research. We've always asked the applicants to provide that for us. The ones that were surveyed, we Just said this is our best information. If you've got something other than that, then you need to present that. We have never gone. Erhart: Do you feel that lO parking stalls is appropriate for this? Aanenson: That's really for you guys to decide. All we're doing is presenting. I wasn't here in '81. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 44 Erhart: Aanenson: beachlot. Farms kes: I know...as it is today. Can the beachlot hold that many? Certainly. It's a big When were the stalls put in? There must be a record of whoever put them in. Who built them? Aanenson: Frankly, I don't think they're stalls. They Just pull over. It's a pull over. Farmakes: Well the purpose of what we're doing here, correct or wrong, that we're not supposed to be expanding the use from Batzli: True. Conrad: Okay, then the point is that the lO, let's just take one point on the off street parking. There really aren't any stalls there. Farmakes: That would be an expansion. Conrad: So 10 is an expansion. ' Erhart: Then we shouldn't say stalls on the form. It's Says off street parking. What does that mean? Does it have to be asphalt? It doesn't say it has to be asphalt. It doesn't say it has to have lines. Do the' other ones have asphalt and lines? -' ~anenson: Some didn't, no. Conrad: Nobody's asked for 10 off street parking. ~anenson: There's no rules in this one. 8atzli: I think the more difficult thing is, and if you're looking at this with an eye toward, we're comparing it-some other beachlots and the difficult thing is, in this apartment I'm sure they've had one hack of a lot more turn over. Aanenson: I was going to say, it's transient by nature. It's much more difficult for them to provide information. Batzli: And they won't have Minutes. They won't have little dues collected for, I mean I don't know what they're supposed to give us. Conrad: But it's their job to do whatever it takes. Erhart: Let's try another approach here. Let's say we come back and approve that street and following-that it would be logical to actually put stalls in because now the street's got curb and gutter and everything. How would you do that and how many could you hold reasonably? ~anenson: Parking on the street Or parking in the beachlot? Planning Commission Nesting September 2, 1992 - Page 45 Er hat t: Aanenson: No, on the beachlot. It's a pretty big beachlot. - Erhart: In the area you have, could-it support lO asphalted parking lots with lines? Aanenson: Yeah, I'd certainly say it could. Conrad: I don't know that you'd want that there. Erhart: I'm not saying you want it. I'm just trying to, versus what? Conrad: I just don't know that the beachlot's purpose is to store cars. Erha~t: No, but there's other beachlots wlth off street parking. How are they doing theirs? Aanenson: Well most of them use, and I think that's wha{ they said is that they go down there. They park their cars while they launch their boats and they pull them out at night and they pull them behind the apartment building. I think they stated that they're not sitting there overnight and that's what Frontier Trail does. That's what a lot of them do. They pull their boats down there and leave their.cars there while they're in the water. Erhart: That's on street parking? Or it's off street. Ranenson: Off street. Erhart: So they just drive it out in the lot. Ranenson: When they're done at the end of-the day. Erhart: Do they have a single access point? Here you just pull off to the side. $o everybody backs out on the street again to get out of it. Is that correct? Batzli: Probably turn around on the lot. Aanenson: You can turn around on the lot. It's sufficient size. Erhart: Then it supports lO. Batzli: Well, just to put in my two cents worth. I think from what we've heard, there was a beachlot there. There was probably a dock. I don't know if there were boats there or not. I don't know if there was offstreet parking or not. We're trying to determine whether, trying %o limit the use of this back to '8l levels. I'd like to ask the applicants you know, do you have any records or any way to determine what was there in Donna Bohn: I'm sure that we can dig them up...if you look at the picture you can see that there was a pontoon boat and fishing boat on the Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 46 side of that... Batzli: ...it doesn't mention off street parking. It doesn't mention the 7 boats. I mean it's clear frc~n looking at that that picture there's at least 2 boats but I think what the commission is not yet comfortable with in it's own mind is that there is no other evidence at all up to the level that you're requesting and our task here tonight is to determine what that level was. So what it sounds like we're going to do is table it and let you have a chance to demonstrate to us that you did have these kinds of things back in '8l because right now there's nothing in the' record at all, and we need to do that to be fair to the other applicants. We made the other applicants do this and ! think we're going-to have to ask you to do a little digging. Is there a motion? Erhart: yeah, I'll move to table the decision on this. Farmakes: Second it. Batzli: Any discussion? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to table the Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Lakevie~ Hills ~artments Homeo,~ners Association for further information. All voted in favor .and the motion carried. · · Erhart: Let's make sure that we've got for Kate exactly what we want to see when we come back with this. ~4e want to see more information from the applicant about the 10 parking lots. That's one issue. Or the lO. Satzli: The off street Parking. The boats on land. Erhart: And the boats on land. Batzli: I'm comfortable that there was a beachlot there with a launch and a dock. Erhar%: Yeah, so you don't have to waste any time with that. Batzli: I mean I'm sure that as digging up other information, that's going to be in there as well but Ladd, aye you comfortable with those things? I mean I just lightly said I'm comfortable that there was a beachlot there. Conrad: Yes. Ledvina: I guess I would like to see more documentation on the dock. The existence at that time. If that's possible. Conrad: Again, this can be a resource that is real valid for the Lakeview Apartment owners. Don't get our comments wrong because it can be a good resource but again, I think we have to make sure that it's the' right resource in that neighborhood and also it's got to'be controlled and that, I guess I, well. As a separate item but it's still what I'd Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 47 like to have staff report back on is how .we can get our hands around the control issue. Erhar[: What's the current ordinance? Conrad: And if that means revoking the-beachiot, this permit, because of abuse or something, I need to know that. Aanenson: We'll also look at the boat launch issue and the erosion. Conrad: And any kind of ordinance changes that Just doesn't single this out but ordinance changes that really reflects on control for boat access and primarily again I'm real concerned with milfoil. Obviously Riley has it but there's absolutely no reason that we have to continue adding to it and that's an issue that I think deserves some attention on all lakes, and I think this issue, this particular property is a little bit different but there may be properties like this in the future. So I just, I would hope that we could talk to the applicant a little bit about, I'd rather negotiate a deal on that so we can somehow get some control rather than changing ordinances. But if that's what it takes, we're going to have to do something in an ordinance to somehow get our hands around unauthorized use of that property. Batzli: Okay. Thank you very much for coming in. Due to the, are' you sitting around waiting for the fence? I would rather table the fence and get onto the other stuff. Al-Jeff: That's fine. Krauss: Before everybody leaves, I think we'd like to renottfy them of the next time this is going to be on. Since this is a holiday and with Target being on the next agenda, I'm not sure we can turn this around to the next meeting. So we'll send out notices.. ZONING ORDINANCE /~DMENT RE~ZN6 FENCE REQUZREMENTS. .(T~BLED ) 8atzli: If you guys want to pass the fence, you can. Erhart: I think we ought to do the fence when Steve is here. He's big on this fence thing. Batzli: Well I live on a corner lot, I don't like this. Okay. Farmakes: Do you have a fence? Batzli: No, but I was thinking about building one. Menards tomorrow. I'li have to run to APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 19, 1992 as presented. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 48 CITY COUNCIL UPOATE: Krauss: Well I really don't want to waste time going-through it unless you want me to but one thing I do want to tell you is when you get home tonight, in your mail you'll probably find a brochure for the State Regional Planning Conference that's here at the end of September. l think it's a pretty good conference' There are some good tracks in the thing. There are some specific things for Planning Commissioners that may or may not prove to be of interest. You don't have to go to it ail. It's over in the St. Paul Hotel. 23, 24, and 25 of September. If you want to go, let me know. We'll pop for it. 8atzli: There's a big legal seminar coming up on maintenance and managing wetlands. Did you see that? I.t"s one of the people that we've got hired as an expert is going to speak at it I think. I'm going to fax you a copy tomorrow. Krauss: It's in Brooklyn Park? Batzli: I don't remember. I'll fax a copy to you tomorrow. I was interested in seeing that. Did somebody from Larkin, is speaking and somebody from I think one of the people that we've hired as an expert somewhere along the line. Or I've heard their name. Anyway. It just struck me as you were talking about that other. Krauss: Like I say, if you do want to go, wa'Il gladly pay for it. Conrad: I went through that real quickly and I didn't see...stuff that you think we should be attending. Krauss: Well there's a lot of design oriented stuff that might-be kind of interesting. There's some specific wetland stuff. Conrad: Why go if we know it all? Krauss: I can't answer that. I think it's unfortunate the brochure came out about 3 weeks later than it should but I think it's got a good range of things. We have, I got Bill Morrtsh to do some discussions there... Erhart: One day? Is it a one-day seminar? Krauss: No, it's actually 3 days but Planning Commissioners, for a nominal fee I can have you folks drop in and drop out at your' leisure. Erhart: And where is it? Krauss: St. Paul Hotel. ONGO~N~ ITEM$: Batzli: Anything on our ongoing issues?' Or can we blow right by that and get onto the good stuff. Did you change the status of anything on here? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 49 Krauss: I always change it. Batzli: You probably took something off, and we didn't even notice. Ledvtna: Look at the asterick. Batzli: Yeah, but he puts these astertcks on.there and it's like he corrects the spelling and then that's a change or something. Or he moves it to be reviewed by Planning Commission in, it used to be July and he moved it back to September. OPEN DISCUSSION: Batzli: Let's do entry monument and stuff like that here. This is open discussion. Or do you want to do Fred first? Krauss: Well I'll leave it up to you. In interest of the last hour, which project, I guess I'll ask the City Manager. Which project do you see as more timely? The monuments and the... JEFF F~RMAKES - ENTRY ~JNUMENT ~ P-~Y. PONY. PRYZI~ 'COR~ER DESIGN CONCEPTS, R~VIEW ~ DISCUSSION. - Krauss: Just briefly, because [ want to bounce thLs back to Jeff. For the last couple years the HRR has been looking into entrance monumentation at major intersections on'Highway 5. The reason is to make sure people know that they're entering Chanhassen. That this is not just another community of strip roads and tip up buildings. That this is our downtown and there's been, one of the primary entrance points that's been looked at for media work is the Market Blvd. one and 'TH 5. There's been a series of designs...working with an architectural firm and they've developed a couple and the HRA was not terribly enamored ! guess with any of them and City Council wasn't either. ! think everybody had their favorites but one of the things the Council did is they said, well we're not able to make a decision at this point. Why don't we throw it open to see if we have a creative resident or two that might come up with something. Well Jeff filled that role and'actually came up with some designs for an entrance monument and also for the Pauly, Pony, Pryzmus block which again, I don't think we'll have time to .get into tonight. He's done a lot of work and was quite creative on that and came before the HRA with some success. I wasn't at that meeting but I believe, what I heard is that they were quite comfortable with what Jeff had proposed. Now if you recall back to January, we had agreed with you that we would try to bring you on stream with HRA developed-proJects so that you have input into them before they're set in concrete. So that's why we're bringing to you these three things tonight. And with that maybe Jeff, if you want to explain the.-.. Farmakes: Well, part of what you said is correct. I actually' worked on the monumentation sign as a part of the presentation that I made that had to revolve around city identity. On how the City's handling identity. Identity being a logo useage and buildings, architectural and other uses. I did this as an example. Not this particular drawing but a different drawing dealing more tn relationship with image of the leaf and type and Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 50 so on. It was more in a generic form. It was a generic discussion. Not necessarily as a monument solution. This was somewhat revised based on Barton-Aschmann, and I can't remember the other firm. But anyway, this was revised and ~hen I brought it back at'their request at the second HRA meeting and on this particular piece here, I coutd describe, I don't have . anything prepared here but basically it's an element of a 3D sculpture with bronze and copper of the image of the leaf and then something to encase it so it doesn't fall over, on a Chaska ashlar, limestone type of semi circle which basically I think you've seen here. Some time ago they brought forward a skirt design which this actually evolved from. For a landscaping plan at TH 5 and Market Blvd.. We Just saw the one plan I think at that time. ~nd that was just an example that I used because it was sitting around here as to incorporate some of the critique issues revolving in signage. So we wound up with this. And it deals with the elements of readability of type. Of image and it hasn't· been evaluated to actual site testing which still concerns me. That hasn't been done up to this point. ~t least as far as ! know. In other words, the size relationship as it is. I used the same size relationship as the architect who originally was working on the concept and it's quite close. Within a few feet. Paul, is there anything more there that I'm'leaving out? · Krauss: No. ! don't think so except that you elude to the fact that this fits into a background. This is one element of, there's a landscaping scheme behind it and I think we still have the open water part. Basically the other elements if you'll recall. There was one option that had a 50 foot high, somewhat mo-nolithic...with a maple leaf cut out of the interior lighting and the other one was an equally high clock tower kind of like the clock tower we have here but on stilts. Farmakes: I think there were two. The landscape plan that the architect came back with. One was nothing back there and some flagstone and some prairie grass. Is that right? I didn't go through-the designations of all the plantings but I think, there was like a prairie grass thing. And then another one was more of a formal planting in the center of the semi circle and then kind of falling back into some larger ornamental tree. Krauss: Getting a sense of presence at that intersection is kind of tough. It really is on the edge of where the prairie starts in our community. It's quite open and you've got 8 lanes of traffic and turning lanes. It really needs to be of significant size. Farmakes: And again, the site testing issue though, there's two questions of a monument. One is, that you can see it from 20 miles away. For example would be a highway type sign t'hat you see coming into Hinkley that's 120 feet tall. ~nother issue is that it identifies a place and that you see it in a reasonable amount Of time to identify that it serves the mark. This is not as tall but it, at approximately that size it should be able to be seen from a considerable distance down'the highway. As a structure or to identify this is Chanhassen. But again, site testing would be the issue here where they take character letters cut out at that size. Site evaluation. Whether o¥ not if it's built up or the ground level is built up at all or contoured. All that needs to be evaluated. Planning Commission Heettng September 2, 1992 - Page 51 Batzli= You say this is a Chaska brick yellow kind of? Farmakes= I'm referring to the Chaska brick which is an early pioneer stoning product that they have around here. An ashlar pattern which to me is a random building pa/tern. That's a concept sketch. It's not a building plan so you might want to pass that around because it's quite faint from here. Batzli: Well what do you want, is OUT purpose tonight Paul to take a look at it and tell the HRA to go with it or is our purpose tonight to just say, say what? -. Krauss: Well, it's kind of tough. I mean this particular one is kind of tough with you because you're not, I guess we didn't plan to give you the three options to go with but it seems to me the HRA is focusing in on this design. See this is a real early stage. I mean the thing is not finalized to come to you for a site plan approval for example. Batzli= But if we hate it, you want to know that now? Krauss: Yeah, that would help. Batzli: Okay. Erhart: Where does this go? Krauss: Just south of the bank. Erhart: That's the only one? Just one of these. Krauss: Well we're doing other things at other intersections but they're likely to be different. Erhart: This is the big, most expensive one. What does it cost to build something like this? Krauss= I don't know what the cost is. Farmakes= The indication that they made, they have a b~dget obviously but the indication was that it was actually less than what they had originally envisioned. I think they had a 60 foot tower or something' behind there plus the skirt. Erhart: What is that? Farmakes: I haven't seen the budget. The overall working budget for that item. I didn't design it to budget. Ashworth: $60,000.00 to $80,000.00. This' will be a fraction of that amount. I don't know what fraction but under... Erhart: For this monument? Planning Commission Nesting September 2, '1992 - Page 52 Ashworth: I have not asked the Barton-Aschman to do a revised esttmate on this one but Jeff. Farmakes: Well, the basic building materials are there minus the brick, 60 foot vertical element behind it. It's a bit bigger. It's slightly bigger. The stone is relatively, if you get a nice produce that's. relatively low cost and has high durability. There's some items around here that have been here for 110-120 years. The sculpturing and the green fatlnlng should limit any type of maintenance to pretty minimal. You get again a quality image versus say precest plastic or something like that where with the copper, you get a varying look. It's not flat grained. It's probably the closest example that you'd see around here of that would be the water, Northwest Airlines when you go in there. The waters I think it is. The green farina letter, copper letteri.ng. Batzli: Well, I personally like it. I Just hope I never am the one .that has to retuck point it in about 50 years but. I've had to do that on a couple of Chaska brick buildings and I'm.better at hitting my thumb than the end of the chisel after about 3 days of that. So does anybody hate. it? Conrad: Just a couple of questions. Why is the ring around the outside of the leaf? Jeff, is this for support? Is it a design element? Farmakes: You have a three dimensional sculpture, it's kind of a serrated edges there if you're doing a leaf. You have to beef up the leaf a little bit to make sure that somebody doesn't come by and kick it in. If a brass element or bronze element goes around it, it's going to give it some stability. Conrad: If you weren't concerned with stability, would you design it differently? Farmakes: With that image and the amoUnt of the weight that that would be, I would be concerned about stability. Conrad: Really? Farmakes: Yeah, definitely. Somebody could get hurt. Conrad: So you're talking, how big is that leaf? 4 feet? Far ma kes: 6 feet. it. Probably at least that. Probably closer to 6. Between 5 and Plus if it's 3 dimensional, there's going to be some weigh to Conrad: That's another thought. You picked the leaf obviously. why but did you ever have a-ny inclination to put like a~..'random sculpture there? Something that's... I know Farmakes: Actually, the purpose of this is potentially a vertical sculpture or something could go behind there at a later date. In the garden area. But the issue of the leaf I think, that's another issue that we talked about. That's another kettle o~: worms which actually this Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 53 started from. It was discussing the issue of how unfocused Chanhassen's identity is becoming as far as signage goes. We use several different applications but the leaf seems to be the most readily identifiable useage that we've got to this date. Batzlt: The only concern I actually have is, .would be that if we did choose a maple leaf, which is Maple Grove, Maple Lake. You know te you talk about trademark, likelihood of confusion, everybody and their mother uses a maple leaf. So it is the most readily identifiable but yet people don't necessarily identify it with Chanhassen. Farmakes: You're correct. We didn't identify it. The name reflects that, as I understand from the history, but the other issue is that, really we need to be identified by the communities that we surround. Obviously there's going to be other areas that are going to use tree symbols or leaf patterns. It seems that the leaf identifies us from the communities that surround us. We also use a sailboat which ~s used by Excelsior and Minnetonka so that, the point I guess is not that. I made and a different issue than this, was that we should firm that up or look at that. It hasn't been looked at in a long time and it's I think circuit goes back to when this was going to be ki~d of a western dell and the development that you see over by MGM and I'm not sure'how relevant that is. Batzli: Yeah. Well I think this is a real good effort and I applaud those efforts. I think you did a nice job. I think you're right. You do want to concentrate probably on the communities surrounding us. Using Maple Grove and Maple Lake aren't, I think Maple Plain probably uses a maple leaf too but I guess that's not so big of a concern. I .think it's the arrival and the identification. You have arrived in Chanhassen. Farmakes: Subliminally, those types of elements are natural elements too. It gives it a positive image to the city. It's one that generically acceptable as being a good thing. Good pleasant image. BatzIi: Well I guess I'd like to see him proceed in this fashion unless you guys would like to voice your displeasure one way or another. That's what we're here for. If you don't like it, say so. Ledvina: I think the concept is very good. I like the idea of breaking. Originally we had a solid wall all the way across and that was the first thing that we saw. Essentially from a plainer perspective, a rectangle and this gives it just so much more interest, in my view. So I like it a lot. Conrad: I like the dimension of the brick on the bottom. I guess I'm just thinking that, I don't have a need to project maple leaf. Chanhassen says who we are and maple leaf has never, you know we're not Daytona where you show a logo and you know that it means Daytona. So I'm struggling saying okay, is the maple leaf what I want to see there? And I don't have a real, I like the foundation a lot. I think that's neat. I'm just questioning whether we have to project the leaf. Planning Commission Heeting September 2, 1992 - Page 54 Farmakes'- Typical city useages are logos on cars. On police, fire, water towers. They tend to be more viewer friendly. Batzl£: Viewer friendly but it's used In connection with the services that the city is providing. It functions no differently than any other service or trademark. Farmakes: Sure . Batzlt: It's recognizable that this is Chanhassen service. Water tower. firemen, policemen, whatever. Farmakes: No question but like any other trademark, they typically throw more in than type to allow for some creativity of image. Conrad: Tim's the art critic. Erhart: It looks great to me. Batzli: Okay, let's move on to the next.- Krauss: Rs this design gets refined, we'll make sure you get another look. FRED HOISINGTON - CONCEPTS FOR DOI4NT~. HOTEL EXPANSION. REST~KJRANT. CONVENTION AND ATHLETIC CENTER ON THE OLD INSTANT WEBS/8OWLING CENTER $.ITE. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION. Krauss: The next one, I guess the last one for tonight, is a real exciting project that's coming together very rapidly. It takes place in an area that's been a problem from a planning standpoint for years. Nobody's quite been able to figure out what to do with the back of the Dinner Theatre area with the bowling alley area. And it's taking on new prominence given it's location from the new intersection. The City's been rapidly developing some plans over there for a conference convention center. We asked Fred to come here tonight to gi~e you an overview of how it lays out. Again, this Is a project that's not fully developed but if rapidly, the design is rapidly materializing 8o you're getting an early peak at it and I don't think we have any elevations or anything like that to show you yet but Fred's going to tell you about the layout and how it comes together. Fred Hotsington: I'm beginning to believe that there's a conspiracy to, whenever Fred's name is...don't get to him until after 10:30. Batzli: You just made it by 2 minutes tonight. Fred Hotsington: I remember only one time I think that I've ever been on before 10:30 so we're right on schedule. At least I am. Paul called and indicated that it would be appropriate at this point if I would present some preliminary ideas about how the south side of West 78th Street might be redeveloped. As Tim and Ladd and Brian know,-we've been struggling with this last project...at least the city in that case owns the land but Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 55 in this case, this is a very difficult project to put together with some very good reasons for that. Rs you know, those of. you who have a close sort of relationship in this area, everything faces onto West 7Sth Street for the most part. The bowling center does have a slightly different orientation to the west and slightly to the south. But because it orients in that direction, this is the back side and it's not only the back side but it's downhill. It's not on the same level as West 78th Street so our problem has always been, how can you make it; whatever happens here, either orient to the block to West 7Sth Street or create a new focus on the back side. ~nd we've never found a use. That's always been a problem. We've not been able to find a use that's a viable use for this location because of it's tendency to be rather invisible. Let me tell you just briefly about .some of the alternatives that have been considered. The ones that preceeded... The one alterantive that has been thought about to a great degree is trying to create, a commercial or retail kind of focus on the back side. That's very difficult to do but it can be done. It can be done by orienting the retai, l to Market Square across the street and essentially obliterating everything that's in the back part of this block. It doesn't relate well to everything else that's occurring here but if the market is there for some additional retail in this area, this could represent a fairly good interface. ~cross the street from Harket Square. Rnother alternative is kind of to leave it as it is. I say that, re-use the buildings as they're currently be re-used for permanent use or at least use the ones that are vacant. ~nd what that says is we have a very difficult...who's best use is probably a building center, lumber yard or something of that .nature. So if we're looking at keeping what's here, we're looking'- at sort of quasi commercial or retail sort of use out the back side which is not consistent with the Comp Plan. Not consistent with the zoning. Rs you know some of the uses that exist in this building over the past several years have been contrary to your zoning code but Paul has been very generous in allowing sort of an interim use of these buildings and that's been fine. But I don't see that that's long term future for this side of the street. The' third alternative, broad alternative sort of is recreation/entertainment c, ente-r. The neat thing about that is, the ingredients are already here. ~t least some of them are. This one being the most important. This one being supportive in nature but there are possibilities for other things that would interconnect this and perhaps create it's own focus and allow for the total reorientation of the block to the back side. How let me .tell you some of the things that we've had to consider in this case. We have been forced to look at. We know for example, and I'm assuming you do as-well, that the scene shop wants to move and the scene shop is currently in this building. If you recall and they would like to go someplace else and there's been some discussion the scene shop could go into the Frontier building, the lower...or that it might reasonably expect to have another location. We know that the hotel and the restaurant or that the hotel wants to expand and that there may be a need for another restaurant here. Or a restaurant. We know that the hotel meeting space is deficient. They need some and that the hotel itself is willing to make commitment to build some-of that kind of space here and we know there needs to be a linkage of that space and of the hotel to the Dinner Theatre. Filly's elimination would be helpful. That's been part of the reason that we've had difficulty with anything occurring here and probably one of the reasons that the community center Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 56 was not approved in this location in the past because it was not a compatible land use. We also need to create a focus but we have to mitigate as much as we can the adverse side of this block. The railroad tracks are not a real plus here and the back side of the Dinner Theatre is not either and it sticks up in the air a long ways so how do you create something that is a barrier but that al-so makes sense in this location. Then the City has some meeting space needs. There is apparently a' need for some city recreational development. Not necessarily here but this seems an appropriate place for it if the right blend of ingredients might occur here. There's a need for pedestrian access to link the whole thing together and of course there's the need to phase, the need to satisfy political realities. But nonetheless, the existing condition, a very difficult one and one that needs to be addressed, could be addressed in a number of different fashions. Some of the things that were considered, in the way of concepts here, were those that eliminated everything. Those that re-use every~ching. Those that re-use portions of, especially the bowling center building and built then new development and attached it to it. And the conclusion we reached after all of that as far as preliminary fashion. I don't mean to suggest to you that this was the final because a feasibility analysis that still needs to be done with respect to this project and that's one of the reasons that important to the Planning Commission to give us at least some feedback. But this is the one that seems to be the most appropriate. If we can expect the convention type facility here, someplace in this development I think we can expect a community center element in this block. That gives us the focus for the back side of this block. And all of that element constructed in this area... The bowling center, according to this plan would perhaps be public owned by the HRA and operated by a private developer. Something...perhaps the same person that is there. The Cinema is something that we kind of use interchangeably and I don't know if Paul...parking analysis for this or not. We're kind of, a couple of the proposals that have been thrown out by Mr. Johnson, Greg Johnson has been, there might be a cinema, there might be a restaurant and there might also be a bowling center and so we've evaluated a number of those and we have some parking...with a cinema and a bowling center and some ancillary use here, in addition to all this going to be supportive to the parking that's here. So the distribution isn't perfect...overall parking would be adequate. One.of the things that would help us a great deal in screening the south side of the Dinner Theatre would be able to go, be-able to build a building in this location. And a scene shop would be an appropriate use because this relationship is a very strong one. Building that they are currently in is inadequate and clearly incidental part of the Dinner Theatre complex so if it could be designed correctly, this could be a very important part of this whole complex. To say nothing of what it would do to screen the Dinner Theatre from the south side from the views from TH 5. So this, one of the reasons that this concept is elongated as it is is because of that along with...lose is a degree of efficiency in the complex itself because of that very elongation. The hotel's here. This is the expansion proposed and essentially what these people are saying is, if we can get some of these elements in place, they will expand. The meeting space is an existing building. The retail, we're suggesting perhaps a restaurant would occur in this gap next to the Dinner Theatre and that this all could be re-used or new. We're not willing to state at this Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 57 point to which it ought to be because it...distant future before anything occurs in this particular case. 'What ~e're saying is that there should be two phases. First phase will include the auditorium and convention and athletic facility and it ~ould be built perhaps, and a pool. Perhaps this much could be built in phase 1 and the private sector could respond and the scene shop, the restaurant here, hotel expansion, meeting space and then the cinema and/or restaurant in this location. So we have a real, truly public/private sort of partnership of making this project work. The second phase then would be either a community center, if in fact it is politically correct to have a community center here, or to have the option to have retail as that element. And so there you have it. This sort of puts everything together. It uses all of the space that's here. Retaining the park and ride lot. Providing for, bus parking for the Dinner Theatre in this location. Perhaps elsewhere but it does work marginally in this location. And we think' finally all the ingredients may be here for the project and I guess ~e'd like your feedback and know where you stand and... Batzli: Market Square is Just across Market Blvd. there so we're looking at the back side of a big Festival Foods or Whatever it is. Does this tie in at all to that or how are we, it looks like you've got it landscaped a little bit along that edge but are just kind of ignoring it and saying well, we're looking at the back side so forget it. Let's just concentrate here. ~ Fred Hoistngton: We're really not looking at the back side. We are looking at the wall. We're looking at the side of Market Square. And we're really leaving this much, well really all of this pretty much as it is. This will tend to focus or orient south. Of course Market Square is here and orients toward West 78th Street. The two are sufficiently different but they don't necessarily have'to interrelate but I don't see them in conflict at all. It seems to me the two Can co-exist with whatever their respective orientations with no problem a't all. Krauss: One of the real important orientations to view this from too is, if you're eastbound on TH $ or if you're coming north on the highway up to Market Blvd., you're confronted with that red neon bowling sign on a 40 foot high tip up panel building and then the back of a former lumber yard and over the tops you kind Of see where there's the church steeple and the oak trees and the town gets nice again. We've often talked'about ways to get new facades on the building. Well in one fell swoop here this pretty much does it for us. And it's real interesting to see how the views are developing there. Stand out by the new bank and look back this way. That's probably the most, that is going to be main street Chanhassen. That is our million dollar street, if we have.one. Fred Hoisington: What we're getting...to carry through what Paul is saying is, as part of the proposal, not only would this all be built...' everything new from here to here but we would also rennovate this building facade... Batzli: What do you think Ladd? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 58 Conrad: I don't know. It looks pretty. First reaction is, it looks like we're pushing everything indoors. You know we have a community center and stuff like that and I guess I have, I like to see walkways and places outside for people. I'm sure you have parking situation that is really a concern but that's my first reaction is we've got stuff inside. And I don't know what the uses are that should be there. I think it's accomplishing some'of the things that staff or Fred want to. .I'm just trying to sink into, do ! want people. It looks like a big shopping center from looking down on it and I'm not real wild about big shopping centers. I kind of like places for people to walk. If we've got a community center, I'd kind of like to think that people could be outside by that center. But I know the restrictions. I know there are parks close by but that's my first reaction. The other thing is we have the $oo Line there. I assume we're not part of, that's not going to be used for anything. And Fred you said, it's a liability. That is a liability. We can't, there's no asset value in the road right there huh? Fred Hoisington: Well Ladd we can do some things in the way of landscaping and one of the things we talked about for a long time and one of the things that we're proposing here is to perhaps some of that existing Soo Line right-of-way'could be acquired. And if not, to do some landscaping within their right-of-way as a part of this. It is an indoor sort of environment. There's no question about that and we'd like to see an internal connection that would come from the hotel expansion and come down into this lobby and continue along the back side of the main space in the front end of the retail and the Dinner Theatre. We think that is kind of a critical part of this whole concept. On the other hand, we don't preclude, this is only a conc'ept. This is not the detailed final plan and we are not precluding an exterior. We see this whole outside edge here is also providing pedestrian access so I don't necessarily look at.it as a totally internalized thing. I think it has some... '. · Conrad: Do you feel it fits in with ail Che, the negatives about malls these days? There are a lot of negatives on shopping malls. Fred Hoisington: What. kind of negatives are you talking 'about? Conrad: Places that people really don't want to go to. I guess you track from the Star and Tribune. Fred Hoisington: The regional malls, people want t.o go to the regional malls. I mean there's no question. There's a real strong attractio~ there. When it comes to the smaller malls, you have so many of them that we over supplied the marketplace and as a result people are not going there because there aren't enough dollars to spe~d on all o~ these centers. Conrad: The regional malls, people are looking for a controlled, predictable environment. Is that what you're providing here? Or is this just a collection of stores? Is this a mall? Fred Hoisington: Well, I don't know that it. Conrad: What is this? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 59 Fred Hoisington: First of all we have, it's a mixed use development. Conrad: Sort of back to back. You do have a corridor in there but they're buildings are sort of back to back. Fred Hoisington: Well no, this would not have a corridor. The corridor would be through probably this area. In this fashion. Upgraded...and so you wouldn't tend to have an orientation. This.would tend to be somewhat separate from'this but there would be ways to penetrate it-so you could interconnect it. Krauss: Ladd, if I could too. I think you've got to put it into the context of the downtown as a whole. We have been developing a pedestrian enabled or oriented downtown. Very much so. ! mean compared to just about anything else. Conrad: I don't buy that. Erhart: I don't either. Conrad: You find somebody walking downtown Chanhassen. We're doing a terrible job in my estimation. Krauss: But the framework is there. It's hard to make people come downtown unless there's something to come down for. This is one of the destinations. One of the problems is we never had a good destination type of use to go back here. What's a destination? Well the hotel's going to expand. They need a swimming pool. They need convention facilities. They'll use that. If there's a pool, it will be a public pool that people can use. Come in there to use that. The bowling alley's a draw in it's own right. Movie theaters are a 'draw in their-own right. A community center, if that's done is a draw in it's own right. This thing is also virtually across the street-from a major new downtown city park with an outdoor amphitheatre that's going to be developed, which is right outside of City Hall. I mean it's basically, you walk across the street and you're there. It's also within walking distance of the shopping area. I've been telling people that, I think we're going to have a lot of walking seniors start coming in as soon as the shopping center opens up. There's not been, I mean the infrastructure's there. We've developed a downtown that's actually a pretty friendly place to walk. It's got nice sidewalks. It's a comfortable place to be. It's set up for it. There just hasn't been any reason to do it. Erhart: Well, not only that but you can't, without the traffic lights, you can't walk. You can't cross West 78th Street. Krauss: Well, signals are on the way. Conrad: And you really can't walk. You know we've got people walking across it. We've got sidewalks on one side of'the road. I guess I know what you're saying Paul. There's some things there but again I'm looking at this and I'm saying well, and we're in the very preliminary stage here. And we...and I think it's meeting some needs but I'm challenging the thinking of, drive your car. Park it and go into someplace. What Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 60 are we doing to facilitate it for people and then the community center. I guess I've never though. There's just a lot of issues that I don't have a clue on. I guess my idea of a community center is not always indoors. There's an outdoor part to a community center but I guess that's the indoor part and the outdoor part will be in the park across where it is now. One of the marketing concepts that I heard them talking about for almost, I guess an abbreviated community center. It was more adult orientated which would tie in more with the conference center, marketing type plans. I don't know how that affects the overall outdoor activity and concentrating the younger kids and so on. Fred Hoisington: It's clearly more of an athletic club than a community center. Erhart: What you're showing? So it's what, for adult? Fred Hoisington= More of an athletic club. Erhart: So more for adults than kids? Fred Hoisington: I would think that both adults and kids could use it but it will be, I hate to use Flagship as an example because it wouldn't be like a Flagship...but nonetheless, it would tend to be more of those kinds of uses than it would to...community center. Erhart: So it would be like a Flagship. Unlike or like a Flagship? Fred Hoisington: Well, like a Flagship in that that's an athletic club as opposed to, this would have gymnasiums, racquetball courts, pool but probably a smaller pool. It would tend to have things, no hockey. None of the things that kids are attracted to but I'm not saying kids won't come here. Kids will come here but it's just that it tends to be more of an athletic type facility than it does a community center type of facility. So it is compact. It's small. But Ladd, regarding your concerns about pedestrian access. .Unfortunately, all of the things that are occurring here are the sorts of things where people d~ive to one store. Shop. Get back in the car and leave. This does not, it has a synnergy that a shopping center has and you probably would never see that. Watch Market Square and see how much pedestrian movement you'll get over there. What you'll find probably, and I...all people but I am, they will go to the grocery store. If they need'to go to another store at the other end, they'll drive. They will not walk and yet the walking capability is there. Erhart: Are you done? Conrad: Go ahead. Erhart: I guess my view is just the opposite. ! think you ought to make it an indoor. I think you've got a great idea here and what you want. You've got the hotel. You want people to come there for a whole weekend and never have to go outside that building in the wintertime. Planning Commission Heating September 2, 1992 - Page 61 Conrad.' But they have to. Erhart: Why? Conrad: Because they're not Connected. Erhart: That's what has to be changed. Conrad: Well but you have to go outside. Erhart: No. Fred Hoisington: How do you mean go outside? Conrad: You said that there's one connection. Erhart: You can get through from the hotel. But I think what you ought to do is expand that and make it an indoor, large courtyard in there where you have a two story courtyard with a lot of glass ceilings. Where you have sunlight come in and put in like an outdoor restaurant only it's indoors. Where you have tables and you have the feeling that you're outdoors in the wintertime and if people could come to those hotels and spend 2 or 3 days in there and hit all the things with the 'family. You know you've got the theatre, the bowling 'alley, you've got the movies, l agree 100~. It should be an athletic club. Not a place for the local kids to play hockey. A place where people can come in and Come i-n for a whole weekend and just go nuts on entertainment, plus sell'associated things like the scene shop and maybe other kinds of things. You have 2 or 3 different restaurants that are unique so every night someone could hit a different flavor. But I think what's missing is the interior courtyards so people don't, because right now I tell you, the whole building is, once you're in there, it's ki-nd Of like you're crawling through caves to get from one point to the next. It's dark. It's dingy. Tiny. Go down to the basement. What you want to do is take it like a. mini-Southdale so once you're out, you know the retail space and entertainment faces into this courtyard and once you're in there, you feel, you know it's January but you're warm and you forget this feeling of, you're inside. It's strictly entertainment. [ think entertainment, you're hitting right on with that. Fred Hoisington: All of this will be of course...This, we have suggested or would encourage, would also be, but w~ need to be realistic and we're not...to say, that it needs to be...but we would sure like to see this whole thing designed as a unit. 'What I would do is express those kinds of concerns and when the design occurs in this thing and really what we're doing is creating now only sort of an envelope and we're showing you a way to service it and showing you some of the interconnections that can be made here and solving some of the problems, that exist with this site but there's a lot to do. I mean ali that design has to be done. We don't do that. That's to be done by an architect and your ideas are good...perhaps optimistic because we probably won't have. Erhart: trees. Hey, I wanted a median on TH 101 south remember? .With the Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 62 Fred Hoisington: I remember. Conrad: Show me again Fred. From the'hotel, where can you get to? Fred Hoisington= Okay, from the hotel. You come through the hotel expansion and you can get down into this complex. Conrad= But you can't get to the bowling alley and you can't get to .the' theatre so it's all outside. Fred Hoisington: How do you mean outside? Krauss= No, there will be internal connections to the bowling alley. Fred Hoisington: There will be a way to get through this and into the bowling center. This will be essentially, you'll be able to get through this entire complex inside. Not all from the outside. Erhart: The way you see it now, it's essentially' halls. Krauss: Not necessarily. Erhart: Narrow corridors. One 8 feet high. : Fred Hoisington= I don't think that's the case at all. We're looking at an escalator type access here. Very open. High ceiling. Krauss: Keep in mind, you've got that grade transition to make and it does allow you to make atrium type spaces in there. Fred Hoisington= We're looking at the two ends here tend to be more solid elements because...and probably a multi-purpose meeting space would be...on the inside here that provides some light penetration. So you end up with a very light kind of feeling in this whole area. But then the challenge is Tim, to make this connection into the bowling center so it works so you can actually come in here and continue through this... Erhart: So the main thing, the closest to what that is is like the downtown Minneapolis area, the newer hotels that where you get around. You go through escalators and different floors and glass and stuff and it's not open like Southdate but it's a combination of some halls. Or like the skyway system. Some halls. Some open. Which is kind of neat. I guess I 'd like to see more, you know. I ~uess the more open space you've got obviously the better you feel 111 3anuary when you're in there. On the other hand, that costs a ton of money. Fred Hoisington: ...your concerns here as I am in this part that is developed right here. Farmakes: Even the present building, i'f you're in the back, it's quite cavernous. It's not like the front that you're describing. There's some big open spaces back there. It's quite deceptive. Erhart: In where? Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 63 Farmakes: In the back of. Krauss: Where Hooked on Classics was. Farmakes: Yeah, back in there. Back some of those open areas. There's quite a bit of space back there. Conrad: Why not put an atrium in the middle? Fred Hoisington: You could design an atrium. You essentially have an atrium right here. Erhart: Expand it a little. We're saying expand it more so that, ! mean let me ask you. How do you, where's the main entrance to all these entertainment points? Is it from the outside or is it from the inside? Fred Hoisington: Well you've have both. The bowling center will want it's access here. The cinema will want it's access probably about here. Erhart: So you can't get to it but all from the inside? Fred Hoisington: No, there will be way to penetrate through here, except we need a way to also close.it off. $o that they can operate;..so you will have a way to enter right here, a way to penetrate here, a way to penetrate here, and a way to penetrate here and a way to penetrate here. so you'll have several ways to get into this complex. And then...on the inside becomes a walkway through this'area. It'd be pretty much glass. It will be very appealing in it's design the way the architect proposes. You'll have a connection then through the bowling center and into this complex as well. That's going to be a little bit more challenging because you know where this is currently. It's right behind the lanes... but all those things are design issues and short of tearing this'down, there are going to be some things that are ,gong to be.a little bit more' difficult to do. But they can be done. Batzli: Matt, did you want to throw in your two cents worth? Ledvina: Well, I like the concept plan here. I think it deals with a lot of difficult elements and there's .consideration on a grand scale and the views and the overall property. So ! do like that. 8atzli: How about you Jeff? Farmakes: I like this thing a lot. I had the opportunity to look at, be at some of these HRA meetings where they're going over this thing. In regards to Ladd's comment. I don't think in our lifetime Chanhaseen is going to be a main street type town. I agree with the things that you say and I hold those suspicions too. We have designed our lifestyle to cars and we have set pedestrians behind the cars. They come second and unfortunately all you have to do is look at how our city is. It is built for cars first and pedestrians second. You're not going to get a lot of people traffic going up and down unless they're going to access their car out in the parking lot. But that doesn't mean that we can't do some things to buffer that. I think our city has expressed an tnterest...the Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 64 ground cover and the impervious surface are up the~e. ! really like that. Boy, that would be nice if we could get Target to do some of that on their open end on the west end. Or even e~ough jus% to break up some of the visual sight lines of pedestrians walking through the area. So you don't see one big mass of cars. !t's broken up with some tree buffering and not just an occasional oranmental but some serious coverage. The other thing is ! think, what Paul said about the parks in the strategic areas of town. Rt least that would offer the city some area to soften the overall effect of what's on %here because even what's not colored in there to say the northeast, that's all parking lot there. To the north of the center, that-'s all parking lot. We-'re basically in a sea of parking lots and anything that we can do to change that ! think it's great and what [s in that turn area to the south side lB, ! think would go a long way to help that out. ! like the idea just from the marketing concept of turning and not trying to make one thing suit everybody and the issue of how we look at a community center. There is different needs for recreation from adults to children. ! don't know [f we should put one before the other in how this comes down but [ really think that like the separation of how this is. One of the things !.was uncomfortable when they were discuss£ng this thing on the HRA is that was going back and forth between a community center and a conference center and a retail center and again, ! get kind of uncomfortable when they were flopping around back and forth and ! really think that. as a conference center and an adult type recreation area, that those types of things would, those make sense to me. And then the nice thing about this is that it's using some of the existing structure that's already 'in place. I think it's a nice concept. Erhart: Nell if I could Just repeat. To not confuse what this is. That is so important to define what it is that .you're going to service. If you have a bunch of different stuff muddied together, it's going to be a financial failure. Batzli: Okay. Conrad: Brian, what do you think? Batzli: What do I think? -Better to make this work and to make it be successful, it has to draw people and there has to be movement within the various aspects I think and in order to do that, if you put in "skyways", like they have some of them in St. Paul. They're dark.. They're tunnels. They're after thoughts. They're hallways down buildings that they decided they were going to wall' off and let the public walk through them. They're not inviting. There's nothing on the walls. They're not particularly kept up well because the management of the whole building takes care of it so you know, they put in the minimum amount necessary before the tenants scream. To make this successful, I think it has to be · open. Something like Tim was saying, some sort of.an atrium. Restaurant or some central place. Some central focus to the entire. To me it's kind of a mass and the analogy of a rat going through tunnels kind of, you get a feel of geez, they're going to have all these. I don't know if you've ever been to the, up to Banff and they've got this big old lodge up there. Banff Springs Hotel. And .it's beautiful. It's great. Built in the lBO0's but they put in all these retail shops in the lower level. Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 65 There's something like 30 shops and that's their big drawing card-. 'You don't even have to go out of the hotel the whole time you're in Banff. Well you feel like a rat down there. They've got windows. They've got them but it's the little maze like, you know and they've got low ceilings and you're down there and you Just say, ooh. It's not inviting. It's not friendly. You walk in the shop and it's suddenly nice but this · little maze of tunnels to get you around between them is very uninviting and very threatening and you simply can't find· your way around down there. Erhart: I think the key is that once you're in there, that you feel that the front of the stores are facing you. Even though occasionally you've got to go through a hall or something to get to it but that once you're in, you don't have to carry your wool coat around to go and do what you're going to do. You can Spend the whole weekend and leave your coat in the hotel room and roam. Do what you want. The athletic club or you go to the play. You go to lunch. Batzli: If the focus was almost turned inward. ErhaTt: Right, that's the way I see it. Look.inward. Batzli: It's nice from the standpoint that it does some things for the city. It hides some views. It solves some problems but I think we can go a step further and make it better and maybe that costs a lot more money and maybe nobody's interested in doing it-that way but that's where I'd like to see our focus. Fred Hoisington: Brian, let me just respond to that. I don't think in these, through this complex you need to be concerned. That can all be designed to work very well. Have a very appealing. Batzli: But see I picture what"you're going to design is the Yorktown Mall where you've got a glass front and an internal sidewalk, or Ridge Square does the same thing I think. You know it's, you've got doors going in and you've got glass, on one side. Then you have what is in essence a mall with a covered, enclosed walkway along the front. I think what we're saying is if you turned those front pieces-around so that they face inbetween the buildings, and I don~t know if that's possible because the buildings that you have in existence already face West 78th. Fred Hoisington: You have a grade change. Your concerns are legitimate. I mean I don't mean to suggest that they're not at all. I am again, I like to see where this whole element designed as the movement can somehow or another do the kind of thing-you're talking about. 8atzli: If it's a two story atrium, it doesn't make a different if you've got a grade change. I mean the fronts of those stores might be. Fred Hotsington: Figure out a way to do that. What the city or HRA would have to commit to do is take all of this. No choice. You have to take it all. And you've got to give the architect when the time comes essentially everything that's here and tell him, now these are the kinds of things I want to achieve and I think you have the private sector is Planning Commission Meeting September 2, 1992 - Page 66 going to buy that because they keep telling us all this stuff is just fine. I'm not convinced of that. But that's the way to make this thing come together in a totally integrated fashion. Other than that, to keep this you have a barrier in the center... Erhart: This could be really something unique in this part of the country if you can get ahold of the' whole thing and make it really an entertainment center. Inside entertainment center. I think you're looking at quite something. Conrad: Going back to the railroad tracks, what are the plans? What's happening? Krauss: It's going to continue to be used. Conrad'. It's discontinued? Krauss.' No, no · Conrad: It is continued and that's going to happen, that's going to be continued forever? Farmakes: ..a couple of trips a day or something? Krauss: It's used almost as frequently as it was before. It hasn't change much but they've been selling off to these short line railroads for a long time. Farmakes: Well now you've got a place to put the old depot. Krauss= here. It appears at least one in every sketch of anything t~ do around Fred Hoisington: We've had it in here several times. Then it's been out and then it's been in and then it's been out...not a viable use. If I were you, I would simply, we hope you kind of endorse the concept but ! would have no hesitation if you wanted to go further and suggest a more integrated kind of thing. I think the footprint is here. It's only a matter of how you can do it better to make it ail work together. Erhart: Nell I don't know, I guess I'd like to see us challenge the HRA to look at a bigger concept. Not bigger in terms of footprint but biggez in terms of what it's going to be. Farmakes: Square feet? Erhart: No. Well maybe. No, more in terms of pizzaz. Batzli: It needs sizzle. It has no sizzle right now. Erhart: Yeah, I have a feeling it's just not going to make it. The ingredients are there but they'll all be viewed as separate things. Planning Commission Heeting September 2, 1992 - Page 67 Farmakes: What if they can design the Structure around the atrium that you talked about and that there was a primary entrance focus at the south and the north and west. You can see it from TH 5. You can see it from Market and you can see it from 78th. Erhart: Yeah, I agree. It doesn't have to be one entrance. There can be numerous entrances. It's like a shopping mall. Farmakes: It would be nice to have something to the south in place of what's there now so at least visually you could know that something's there. Erhart: I assume that the whole south would be redone. Farmakes: But I mean, usually there's a focal element. Ashworth: ! wasn't going to talk. We have sent out proposals for a construction manager for this project. Those have to be in by September 17th, in which case Todd and ! wil.l go through those and set up interviews that will occur in front of the'Housing and Redevelopment Authority on September 24th starting'at 5:00 to 5:30 that afternoon. The specific task given back over to the construction management firms have included, how will you carry out that corridor construction and demonstrate to the HRA that your firm is the best firm to be considered for that activity. What is your experience and what is the best, show us what you might do with this convention center area including auditorium, ways to get people around, escalator, the pool, the glassed areas, etc.. I think you're going to find the proposals as they come in that afternoon, very exciting. Maybe .in a similar degree to the storm water management when we brought in the 3-4 different firms and had them kind of competing for why we should select one of those firms for that particular process. ! would invite Planning Commission members to come in during that process. Listen to what some of these people have to say. I think that they're going to, you're going to be surprised. They're going to be addressing the same issues that yoU're talking about tonight. They've already identified the importance of some of those same issues. [ think that I'm really looking forward to the 24th. ! really believe that we have five firms out there that could head this project up. Hake it something that would be very worthwhile for the city and ! anticipate that the HRA that night, the 24th, will make a selection of one of those five firms. Erhart: So you right now have to decide whether you're going to tear everything down other than the bowlLng alley building and the Dinner Theatre or whether they might save something buildings? That's all up ir the air yet? Ashworth: Well, no. I"mean the Portion of the Instant Webb building that's currently owned by eloomberg will gO down. The back side of Merlyn's will go down. Bloomberg has responsibility to remove those. The two, the scene shop and the other building will go down. You're literally talking about new construction throughout the entire area. Th~ only spot that might be considered for rennovatlon would be the Herlyn's Planning Commission Meeting SeptembeT 2, i992 - Page 68 existing building and then the building for the GUyS and Dolls. The barbe~ shop type of thing. Batzli: Thank you. Does Fred need anything from us tonight? Okay. Fred Hoisington= Really this is.going to be in the hands of the construction manager. And that process ~ill continue and you just 'need to kind of keep tabs on ~hat's happening as it progresses. Erhart: It iooks exciting. Batzli: Yeah, ! think so. Thank you for coming in. Can we table our tree conservation easement? Yes, yes, yes· E~hart moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted tn favor and the mot[on carried. The meeting was adjourned at' 11:20 p.m.. Submitted by Paul K~auss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim