Loading...
PC 1998 04 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING APIIlL IS, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Allyson Brooks, Ladd Conrad and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: STEINEII DEVELOPMENT IS IIEQUESTING SITE PLAN IIEVIEW FOIl TWO OFFICE INDUSTIIlAL WAIIEHOUSE BUILDINGS UP TO 113,600 SQ. FT. LOCATED AT THE NOIITHWEST COIINEII OF CENTUIlY BOUELVAIID AND COULTEII BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff from fellow commissioners. One clerical in nature. If you look at the... 113,600 building that says it will be built on 9.16 acres and then you look at Lot 3 as being 8.98. Where's the difference coming from or is that just. Generous: It's moving through the line in the project. It's slightly north of halfway. Peterson: If there's no questions, I think the key thing I guess really seeing a better rendering of what the proposal is and.., some of those changes are. The other item you talked about in the staff report, and I quote in the other paragraph it says, the staff will not support additional buildings that incorporate the same materials or design elements as the first two site plan proposals. You also inferred that it's similar to the first building and.., falling into a gray area about similarity versus distinctly different. Do you see the first building on that site is developing, that the difference with the current.., in front of us tonight, is that substantially different or are you talking abruptly different in it's dealing in architecture or is the difference that you see.., for additional buildings in that development. Generous: I believe, what I'm looking for is when we have another building that might be similar, office warehouse type that they incorporate additional materials so that we don't have only tilt up concrete paneling in there. Maybe block face. Some I'm aware we're looking at for at least the highway frontages would probably be brick and steel and glass finishes. Peterson: Is it safe to assume then you're somewhat accepting this one being somewhat similar to the first one? Generous: Yes. Right. Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: Now you're drawing the line and you're saying no more like this after this one? Generous: That was my point, yes. Peterson: Okay. To that end, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission and if so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development and I have with me tonight Steve Krapek of Smuckler Architects. He'll speak to the color renderings and the tile massing of the project. And also Peter Kordonoxw our properly manager for the first Steiner buildings in the Arboretum Business Park. Let me just give you a little insight into why we have two options in front of you. We're trying to develop the Arboretum Business Park for industrial and following the PUD, as you recall, there are certain sites that will front on Highway 5 and 41 and those will have, in some cases, different uses that's outlined in that PUD. We are owners and developers of multi-tenant office-warehouse projects. Our first building is fully leased up and we'll be finishing the final construction at the painting and landscaping right away starting next week and leaving through the month of May. Looking at trying to move the project along, the City, ourselves invested in Century Boulevard and we picked this site. It's already graded. It's ready to go and Century Boulevard will be blacktopped to the site. Looking at the square footage and the potential of this site as outlined in the PUD, it yields I think Bob said up to 117,000 square feet of floor area ratio. Looking at the market place, it's changed. We're in a more mature market now. There's getting to be quite a bit of vacancy, especially in the southwest. Shakopee and even in the east side of Chanhassen. So we're proposing two, because we want to get an anchor tenant before we start construction. So if we have a larger tenant, one of 50,000 square feet, it would trigger the larger building. If we get a smaller tenant, something in the neighborhood of a minimum of around 18-20,000 square feet, we would do the smaller building and then phase the second building. The object obviously is to, from our standpoint, not to overbuild the market and have a lot of vacancy. So that's why we're looking for the flexibility. Currently we're marketing both buildings and we have interest in both but until we have a signed tenant, we don't want to move forward so we appreciate your consideration on that flexibility. Other than that, I think I'll turn it over to Steve and he can mn through the final color selections and I'll just preface one final statement. The staff comments we reviewed the issue of the protruding mass versus the recessed mass is fine with us. We've made that adjustment. Steve will show you the impact of pulling basically the area around the entrance out versus recessing. Steve Krapek: As Fred said, I'm Steve Krapek with Smuckler Architects. On the overhead, if you want to do it that way. You can see a perspective from the comer. The building that's shown in this perspective is the higher of the two proposals that we've shown and the longer one. As you can see in this area, this is the area that we discussed with Bob in terms of pulling all those entry forms open. If you look on the plan, it's probably easier to... forward but you can see that it runs between the entrance... I believe are three bays long. Giving sort of multiple opportunities for... The color schemes that we used tended to be those that we discussed with Bob. Also the colors that were sort of compatible with what we felt... On all the entry forms we tend to darken up the entry so that.., scale of the building down. The relief that are in the recast paneling aren't that.., so we felt we needed to bring in some additional color to help bring those along. That's the color 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 that's shown here and I believe.., it doesn't show very well on that screen but all the colors, the two that are here are actual paint samples from the paint.., sent to us. They give you fairly good indication of the direction that we're going. This lower band that goes below the windows is again still precast... As I mentioned before, the back of this building will have the.., pre-cast concrete finish. The front of this is smooth... The diamonds that are shown here are... The parapet walls above the roof line is high enough so the mechanical equipment is screened. We also think that.., and the treatment that we did along the top of that building in raising that panel up slightly higher tends to break that long facade a little different than you've seen traditionally in a lot of the other buildings around here. Some of them have made that gesture but they've done it with metal roof forms that are back from the building and they haven't actually changed this perimeter or the skin at all. And we've done that. This panel now is an inset panel that's just being painted a different color. It isn't recessed that was indicated probably by the shadowing when we did this rendering a couple days ago. But the entry glass is recessed some to give you some relief back... And again this band that's shown here is the one that's shown in this perspective.., about an inch or two and they'll be painted in those stripes. Peterson: You speak of that reveal being an inch or two in depth. Walk through if you would, are they all.., or are some of them greater in depth than others? Steve Krapek: Well I think if we look at this, and it's rather small. I'll pass this around so you can get a better feel for what this color is actually like. I think obviously there's an issue of exiting and life safety so each one of these bays will have an entry and I believe that this.., it's sitting back and it probably will only happen if the primary entity.., wouldn't you think? Peterson: That was my second question so you can answer them both. The depth of the entrance and the reveals, architectural reveals being the diamonds and the character around the entrance itself. Are they 2 inches also like your band or are they a foot? Steve Krapek: No, the walls themselves are only a foot thick.., insulated panels. About 3 inches to 4 and then the insulation is integral in that.., so those reveals will be on the order of an inch and a half to 2 inches.., the engineers and the problem of how much revealing we have and.., but I would think that the diamonds could be deeper than the horizontal reveals and typically they're between an inch and an inch and a half. Peterson: Discuss the possibility if you would, going deeper... My sense is architecturally you'd get more character out of more depth but what are the alternatives, is that possible based upon the current building or not? I could be wrong. I'm just giving my opinion there. Steve Krapek: Well you could maybe go 2 inches. IfI asked them, you know without that additional cost, you are limited by that first thickness of concrete because as I said, it's a very ingenious system that they came up with buildings insulated with styrofoam in-between those pours and they have.., the thickness of that wall so in all of that that I've ever seen is 2 inches. Fred Richter: ... system is a very smooth finish with a... reveals and all those reveals then are complimented or articulated by the changing color. So you actually get the.., through the change Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 of color. Not necessarily the depth. The only way you would get articulation through depth would be shade and shadow and even if it were 2 inches, it would be very nominal so through the basically taking this smooth concrete which then becomes like a palette for painting and you can really then develop.., very cost effective way compared to other industrial buildings where the options aren't.., combining them with changes in paint colors. Steve Krapek: The other thing that I would add to that is that you know typically other buildings that are of this scale that aren't pre-cast, and they aren't masonry, tend to be that EFIS... system. The styrofoam that has the stucco.., on top of it. Traditionally even in just for instance the Dayton's that's over at Southdale. Those reveals are no deeper than an inch, two inches. The difference hopefully in this one is that we have fairly wide reveals compared to some of those longer ones and you know we've done different things to try to break that mass down and color becomes a fairly important part of that process. The revealing and the diamonds and that tend to give a certain rhythm and flow to that building so that it just isn't this big blank sort of thing but obviously there's only so much you can do with a lot of blank wall and the color is really a fairly important part of that. Peterson: Is this building material essentially the same as the previous? It's just a different color. Fred Richter: It's the same structural concept, basic concept... Peterson: Other questions from fellow commissioners? Conrad: So the rendering is really not accurate? Steve Krapek: No, the rendering is fairly accurate. This one? Peterson: The one that we have. Conrad: The one that you just passed around. Steve Krapek: Accurate in what way? Conrad: The depth. Steve Krapek: Yes it is. The entry forms that are shown here previously as it was submitted, it was all one flat facade. There was no stepping out of these entry forms at all so. Conrad: This looks like 2 feet and you were just saying 2 inches so. Steve Krapek: No. I'm sorry. What we're talking about the is the depth of these reveals, like this red stripe, these diamonds. This panel sits back from the face of that panel. The other issue that we were talking about is rather than have one long facade that was 300 feet long, we bumped those entry forms out 5 feet. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: Other questions. Joyce: What's different with the west elevation as far as the treatment versus, is there any difference? Steve Krapek: The west elevation is different in the character of the skin of the building. The front of the building.., are smooth, similar to the building that was... The back part, the west elevation and this band that's above this.., reveal which would be here, is still the smooth finish. The back.., are you familiar with what that looked like. Joyce: I saw that in the report. Steve Krapek: Essentially they take a... Fred Richter: The west elevation is all loading docks... Steve Krapek: And it's finish tends to create a lot more shadow lines than a smooth face would. I won't say that... Fred Richter: As Bob pointed out earlier, the good thing that the site plan is, our west elevations always face into a hill. So basically doing the west elevation is almost.., for the most part the west elevations face into... Peterson: Move to the north elevation. Assuming that that is, at least for a period of time, the majority of your traffic is going to be coming down that road from the north. Your first impression is a pretty cold and blank wall of the small rendering that I'm looking at at least of the building. Steve Krapek: Well it's exactly this shot and it's a fairly deceiving elevation because if you look at this plan. Fred Richter: There's some confusion on that because in both cases, you're looking at this north elevation but that would be, that would be the elevation for a period of time but our intent is to do the next building, another 50,000 square foot building and that would become an internal elevation but it could be a year.., where that would be the north elevation. The only difference is that we aren't... Peterson: Even on the larger building, the north elevation, the only difference seems to be six windows that are.., on the rendering. Steve Krapek: No. The north elevation that's shown at the top of your sheet that would say EDO 5. In that instance the north elevation is down here at the long end of this property so that would be the street frontage. And it's this elevation. The rendering elevation and what's a bit confusing in that drawing is that this element that you're seeing here in this rendering, it's at a 45 degree angle so it appears skewed and narrower on that building elevation than it is in actual fact. It's the Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 same width as all the other ones. The north elevation that's shown on that same sheet that's down in the middle of, down here. That would be one of the internal facades when the second building was built and so it really isn't of much point, there's really no entry to... Peterson: And your primary people using that entrance are going to be truck traffic.., back side of the building, correct? Steve Krapek: I don't believe that we'll bring trucks that way. I think the intent is to bring them down this road in the back. And also along the other one and not have trucks circulate through the center of that parking. That would be more for office and warehouse. Fred Richter: But hopefully all the truck traffic is... Peterson: But visually it would be limited to the users of the building primarily? Steve Krapek: And I think Fred made a good point. That until the.., is filled, you are correct in assuming that... Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: I have no other questions. Regarding the pedestrian access. I don't see any sidewalks or link ups to the trails and I noticed that was on. Fred Richter: ... I think right now we just haven't detailed it but Bob, you can correct my memory, are we on the east side... ? Generous: It was always proposed that on the east side of Century Boulevard, the trail system would be and then connecting to Coulter Boulevard going to the east. Which is on the north side of Coulter. Fred Richter: And it'd be the same thing going north. Aanenson: Correct. It loops around. Generous: Yeah, and then there's an internal trail and then a street trail that would connect to the north side of Highway 5. Fred Richter: I think a site plan detail, you'll give us some guidance, we will have some connection for the pedestrians to cross... Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Yes. A question about the rationale behind two buildings versus one smaller building with the potential for expansion. I guess I'm wondering why you would select two separate buildings but not really when I see the rendering here, now it angle off all the comers that are 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 visible to Century Boulevard. This looks like you took an eraser and kind of went down the middle of the building. Steve Krapek: The rationale of why the entries are where they are is because historically there's a certain tenant size that you can.., and you're trying to be as accommodating as you can to all the tenants that you can have and so you essentially.., structurally end up with an entry at every third bay. There really isn't any need from.., because the entry that would go to this final tenant along that side is taken care of back... The difference in the two buildings is that again, the marketplace is very competitive and people have different needs and ifa large anchor tenant came in, they may have different needs in terms of their storage type... Some people have high rack storage. Some have low rack storage. The predominant market at this moment, am I correct is that they don't need to have high rack storage. So they're trying to accommodating enough for a long term tenant that might need that. You look at that as a potential to give something that's not readily available in the marketplace but.., overbuild high rack storage when it's not something that you actually need, it's really not either serving the marketplace and if the cost that the developer has to incur, that it really isn't going to be recovered. And so I think until it's settled out which they tenant they go and what the marketplace is saying that they demand, that's why the flexibility is there. But they're trying to be as accommodating as they can to all parties. Fred Richter: I think the building's flexibility is defined by the.., and we design and own our buildings so we also look for... You see a lot of the tenant bays moving to Hopkins, Eden Prairie and moving out... At this point in time we're trying to do this site plan... Sidney: One more question about material. I'm wondering if it's possible to have a different type of texture in the entrance forms. Is that a possibility? Steve Krapek: It is a possibility. The material.., tends to be the most attractive one I believe of all of them. The smooth finish is the one you pay the most premium for and it gives you the greatest facility to manipulate color. You know as you go into a form that has some sort of texture or surfacing about it, it tends to distort the paint. It tends to wear off quicker. It tends to put more of a premium on that finish and... Blackowiak: ... PUD standards and this is office industrial warehouse, am I correct? Do you have anybody you're looking at or is it still kind of up in the air? Fred Richter: ... Blackowiak: So with what you're looking at right now, would that be looking at the smaller building which you said was more manufacturing oriented? Fred Richter: ... what happens then is what people said and.., so that's why we need to be in a position.., try to have this coincide with the final plat. We've had preliminary plat approved so... Then that allows us to you know pull the permit... 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: Other questions from fellow commissioners? Thank you. Seeing none, may I have a motion to open this to a public hearing and a second please. Sidney moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please? Seeing none... Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Ladd. Can we have your comments on this one please. Conrad: I'm okay. I agree with the staff report. Peterson: Alyson. Brooks: I guess I don't have anything against it. I don't find the building itself particularly architecturally intriguing in any way.., with the parking in front like any warehouse. It just detracts from the building and looks unpleasant but it is what it is. I'm not overwhelmed by it. I'm a little under whelmed. I don't see any reason to stop it either. Peterson: Recommendations to improve it or. Brooks: Not really off the top of my head. I think it would have been better if things were recessed.., in front is flushed and I'm not sure, I don't know. It's a warehouse. You know I wish somehow we could move the parking or hide it. I don't think it ever helps when the parking's out in front. I think visually your eyes.., and again it is what it is and I'm not sure there's much we can do. Peterson: Allison. Blackowiak: Yeah, I really don't have a lot to say. A couple comments I guess. If indeed they are looking for the smaller of the two buildings, the 50,000 square foot building, Phase I, I would ask if there could be something done, some type of landscaping or something on the second part. Could we do that now in conjunction with Phase I as opposed to have it just wait? Specifically along the back of the lot. I think that would be kind of west side. On the north side against the street. I think those would be some things that maybe could be added to improve the general appearance to the area yet not be disturbed by any future construction. Secondly, the north side, I kind of agree with the comments that the north side is visually not terribly appealing but if it is going to be covered up by a second building, I guess we can kind of live with that in the meantime. Finally, I had trouble because it talked about the building being similar in terms of the Heartland and I certainly hope that gets painted quickly because it's, I really wouldn't want it to be similar to Heartland right now. But really that's about it. Generally I think it's good. I would 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 like to make sure that staff works with the applicant to carefully review pedestrian and bike access to the project because that's a very important part of this entire PUD so I would really want to make sure that that gets addressed as well. Peterson: Thank you. Matt? Burton: I pretty much agree with all the comments, particularly Alison's comments regarding landscaping because if it does take a while for the Phase II of the smaller building to be built, it would be nice to have some landscaping, especially on the west and north sides. The other item that I threw out there is the staff report brought up the concern about screening and the applicant did address that but I did notice that it's not part of the conditions and I would.., consider a condition that the roof mounted equipment be screened and that shouldn't be a problem since they're planning on that. And I guess that's it. Peterson: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: Well I made a few comments and tipped my hand about my concerns and I guess kind of starting ofl~ at first when I saw the original renderings I was concerned that we were getting too much of the same thing and I think the applicant has done a good job in improving the architectural features of the building. I am concerned however because I still have a feeling that the textures, lack of texture on both buildings is too much the same and I'd like to see other possibilities and I think maybe the entrance forms is an area where a different texture could be used to add some interest to the buildings. I'm concerned with the polish or the look to the building. I would like to reiterate, if I can say it, staff comments about not supporting additional buildings that incorporate the same materials or design as the first two site plan proposals and I feel very strongly about that. I think since these buildings are more in the center of the development, I feel a little more comfortable but I think we need some more variety next time around. That's all I have for now. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I have one quick question for stafl~ Have we tossed about the idea of any commercial going in there? ..all allocated towards office and industrial warehouse. Generous: Well within the entire Arboretum Business Park there are 4 lots, or 4 parcels that are designated for. Joyce: ... the PUD, the entire PUD is going to have some commercial. I didn't understand it and I got a building square footage breakdown. It's just right now zero commercial. Generous: Correct. Joyce: But we will someday hopefully have, we're looking at some conference centers and some things like that. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Generous: And convenience commercial... Joyce: I don't have much else to add. I'm not.., by it. The building that's there right now look like any other office park, warehouse. It looks like a warehouse really is what it is and I had higher expectations for this PUD. I really thought we were going to try to do something more creative and so far it has not been. You know if we're just doing an office park like over here in the Chanhassen Business Center, that's one thing but I didn't get that understanding when we went through all the process. I agree with Allison. You've got the same parking out in front. I don't see any, it doesn't really look that pedestrian friendly. It looks like another office park. If that's what we're doing, then we've got a big office park out there. I mean I'm not going to, I'll vote for it but I'm not thrilled with it .... development more in the future and get some more interesting things other than warehouses. I mean it's just a warehouse. Peterson: Well I too am a little frustrated. I look at the 113,000 square foot building and I see ten entrances being virtually equal distance apart. Identical in nature. I just see a lot of the same and that disquiets me to say the least, and I don't see creativity. I too, like Kevin, had higher expectations and I'm not at all comfortable with approving a large 113,000 square foot building only because it's just overwhelming and in a spot that I think can off'er a lot more. And I guess under some duress I would approve two buildings only because it does separate and give it at least a little bit softer, a little bit more inviting than the one large building. Architecturally it is like everything else and again I think that now is the time for us to say let's do something creative and different and now I'm placing economics aside by saying that and whether that's an issue, but yet it doesn't prevent me from sharing those thoughts so to that end I'm not comfortable with the large building. I'm comfortable with the changes that have been made that could have been integrated into the two separate buildings. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Burton: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan 98-4 for a 50,400 square foot building. Peterson: Subject to the following conditions. Go ahead and make your motion and then I'll respond accordingly. Burton: Or a 113,600 sq. ft. building, site plans prepared by Smuckler Architects dated March 10, 1998, subject to the following conditions and it's 1 through 17 and I would add 18. That all roof mounted equipment shall be screened walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. Peterson: We have a motion. Do we have a second. Brooks: I'll reluctantly second. Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad: Yeah, we don't have to give approval for the second large building. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Joyce: That's what I... Conrad: I also think the motion should talk about staff making sure, present to the City Council that the connection, the trail connections, pedestrian connections, I think that's got to be real clear. It's a big building. Big site. Several employees so I think there should be a better demonstration of how it's connected. The large building is real repetitive and I think we all share the same concern. I think the proposal is okay but it's certainly probably not the great thing that we envisioned. I think the smaller building works. I think the message to the developer is, from here on out maybe we're going to have different expectations of what goes there but I'd just make those comments. The motion's there. Peterson: ... Conrad: I would make a friendly amendment to the motion that the staff presents, the staff and applicant presents to the City Council all the trail and pedestrian connections in the formal staff report. Burton: I think I'11, ifI can, amend my motion to delete the reference to the 113,600 referenced building. Fred Richter: Can I speak to the issue of... ? This PUD, this property was guided by the City for an industrial office park. The nature of office, industrial is large buildings. Our PUD grants us a certain floor area ratio.., on land, the marketplace for us to do a successful, we need large buildings. I just want to say that that's, we went forward with the PUD. It's our understanding that we can have large buildings on this property. Large buildings by their nature are repetitive. ... go on record that we feel that it's our right... The City made a decision, they wanted this type of taxes on the property. They made a very concerted effort to define where the retail is. They made a very concerted effort to put parameters on property that abuts Highway 5 and 41 with design constraints. We're talking about an interior lot that is guided for these uses and these sizes. And that is you know.., we made our investment in the property and so on. Brooks: Can I respond to that? Peterson: No. Actually, thank you for your comments. We've got a motion and a second on the table and we need to vote on it... after do that, we can come back... Aanenson: Was the motion going to be amended or? Peterson: Well, can he amend a motion after it's been seconded? Blackowiak: It hasn't been seconded. Peterson: Yes it was. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Generous: I believe you have to act on the amendment first to the motion and then... Burton: ... off'er a friendly amendment as part of the last... Conrad: We have to vote on the motion. Peterson: There's been a motion and a second. Burton moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Site Plan #98-4 for a 50,400 sq. ft. building or a 113,600 sq. ft. building, site plan prepared by Smuclder Architects dated March 10, 1998, and subject to the 18 conditions presented in the staff report with one addition presented by Commissioner Burton. All the commissioners voted in opposition and the motion failed unanimously. Peterson: Is there another motion? Joyce: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #98-4 for a 50,400 square foot building, site plan prepared by Smuckler Architects dated March 10, 1998 subject to conditions 1 through, I believe we had 19. I'd have to do redo those conditions, wouldn't I? 18 being, make sure that the root top enclosures were screened with compatible materials. And number 19, that the applicant insure that the pedestrian access and access to trail system for this property. Peterson: Is there a second to this motion? Conrad: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Brooks: Well I just wanted to say that, I don't think the Planning Commission is against your large building. I think what we don't like is the architectural style of the building. I think we're becoming really weary of how Chanhassen is starting to look with all these warehouses. So... because I didn't get the feeling any of us were against the large building, or against what you're trying to do. It's just the look of it, and you've got to admit when you drive around Chanhassen, the warehouses are not a pretty site. And there's not a lot you can do but there's something you can do. Peterson: Any further discussion? Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of Site Plan #98-4 for a 50,400 square foot building, site plan prepared by Smuclder Architects dated March 10, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum Business Park. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 The building entrances shall project out from the body of the building to provide significant visual relief in a manner and at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public streets. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 4. The site plans shall be redesigned to reflect the proposed street and utility improvements proposed with Phase I of the City's public improvement project for Arboretum Business Park. All driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance with the City's industrial driveway detail plate No. 5207. Drive aisle widths to the truck parking lot shall be increased to 30 feet wide and the turning radiuses onto Coulter Boulevard expanded to accommodate truck turning movements. Erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained around the downstream side of the site until all disturbed areas have been revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. Storm sewer inlets shall be protected with silt fence, hay bales and/or rock filter dikes until the parking lot has been paved with a bituminous surface. 7. The City's boulevards must be restored with sod. The landscaping plan shall incorporate landscape material suitable for a 2:1 slope. Site plan approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding a project for Phase II public improvements for Arboretum Business Park and final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. Commencement of construction for this development is contingent on the recording of a final nd plat for Arboretum Business Park 2 Addition. 11. The applicant shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage on site. 12. The applicant shall work with staff to revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements for parking lot landscape, boulevard trees and buffer yard plantings as specified in the staff report. Alternate 1 would require a minimum of 27 shade trees, 24 ornamental or conifer trees, and 36 shrubs. Alternate 2 would require a minimum of 63 shade trees, 48 ornamental or conifer trees, and 72 shrubs. The buffer yard on the west of the site shall incorporate native grasses and wildflower mix as ground cover. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 13. Additional evergreens shall be added to the northern and southern landscape peninsulas at the comers of the building and at the southwest comer of the site to provide more screening of the loading areas from the street. 14. Each landscape peninsula must have one shade tree. Landscape peninsulas less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed. 15. The applicant shall install foundation plantings around the perimeter of the building as required by city ordinance. 16. On the utility plan, off the northwest comer of the Phase II part of the buildings, a hydrant is shown directly in the center of the driveway off Century Boulevard. Please provide a hydrant off of the northwest and the northeast comer of the phase 1 building. Please provide hydrant off the west side of the phase 2 building. Move the hydrant on the south side of the phase 2 building to the southwest comer of the building. 17. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policies will need to be reviewed and followed during the course of the project." 18. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. 19. The applicant and staff present to the City Council a detailed presentation of all pedestrian and trail connections with this site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: HKS ASSOCIATES IS REQUESTING A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF OUTLOTS D & E~ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS INTO LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 3RD ADDITION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 7~443 SQ. FT. HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions for stafl~ Brooks: ...bar-be-que shack? A1-Jafl) No. On the other side. Aanenson: The pond is in the middle .... hotel. Then you've got this project. Then you've got the wetlands and then we've got the other project we've approved. Right. And we've got the other project that we've approved that's got the glass silo, correct. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Brooks: Ladd is very worried about this restaurant. His eating ability in Chanhassen. Burton: When we got here tonight there was an item here from the Milo Architecture Group and one of the concerns that they had was the location of the trash enclosure and the service doors and how that might affect traffic. Have you considered that or is this being considered.., problem? Hempel: Chairman and Planning Commissioners. We assume trash pick-up will be in off hours. Morning hours. Typically when the trash is collected. We don't believe that would be an issue. Burton: They mentioned also that delivery in such a close location to the service enclosure to the driveway if not managed properly may cause inconveniences to the car traffic on the east/west driveway. Is that a concern at all? I just wanted to throw that out. Aanenson: ... typical of off peak hours. Peterson: We've got too much paper here. Other questions of staff'? I've got one on the parking, just for more of clarification. If you look at the parking lot, there isn't a page number but.., planting schedule but there seems to be U-shape inserts into the parking lot in more than one place. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose. I don't know whether it's separating the parking lot from the hotel. Move your finger up. Up. Up to the left. Well, other way excuse me. You're kind of in the middle. Up. To the right then. The left. The left... Basically I'm looking at, here's the building. Yeah. Al-Jarl) ... why they are being removed? Peterson: No, why are they there in the first place? I read them as being put in. There's one there and there's one to the right of the restaurant also. I'm trying to figure what they are basically. Al-Jarl) The ordinance, they're landscape islands. The ordinance requires landscape islands be provided every, I believe it's 2,000, 6,000 square feet. And it's only to meet ordinance requirements. This way you don't have a sea of asphalt. Peterson: This landscaping I'm looking at, that's probably why I raise the question. There's nothing planted on here. On the landscape plan I'm looking at. On those U shaped... A1-Jafl2 Today there aren't. However, when weather permits and landscaping season. Peterson: Again, I'm looking at the plan. There isn't anything on here to be planted on those islands. Aanenson: As a part of his project is your question, correct. That's correct. Peterson: Other questions of stafl~ 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have just a quick one. On the plans I see 8,281 square feet. On the proposal, the staff report I see 7,443 square feet for the restaurant. Which is it? The 7,443? Okay. Al-Jarl) Correct. Blackowiak: So what is the change or loss from the plan that we see as 8,200 square feet? Al-Jarl) ... calculation. Blackowiak: Oh, okay. That's fine. Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commissioners. Please come forward. Mark Clarey: Good evening. My name is Mark Clarey. I represent the Northcott Companies. If members of the commission don't mind, just to follow through we have our consultant team here. Alan Kretman with the civil engineering firm, HKS and Truman Howell with the architects. Alan will basically try to walk you through the site plan and the landscape plan and address any issues that you may have regarding that and then Truman Howell will show you the various building materials that we are proposing for the project, as well as the architectural rendering and the elevations. Basically these 8 x 11 books are just condensed versions for you to follow along a little more easily .... restaurant in Eagan but you'll notice that the pictures in here are taken from and our two consultants will take you through the multitude of changes we've made to the exterior of this building to try to enhance the project and try to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Alan Kretman: Good evening Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Alan Kretman. I'm with HKS Associates, the landscape architect and our firm has done the planning and landscape architecture on the civil engineering on the project. What I'd like to do is simply walk you through what we've done in terms of our approach on the project and answer any questions that you may have on the site design. And then Truman Howell with Truman Howell Architects will come behind me and discuss issues regarding the design and purpose of the building. As you can see from our site plan, what we've done is tried to take a logical extension of the parking lot for Americlnn and extending that to the east. At the same time one of the issues that we had was in the.., building where we wanted to take advantage of the wetland complex that was created as a part of the overall Villages on the Ponds... orient this building in this direction to provide for as much of the view of that amenity as possible. Another major impact with positioning the building was the front entrance. We wanted that to face the parking and leave all this parking out in front. ... with that, we also looked at the site furnishings and how we could compliment.., detail of this site in front of the Americlnn we have brick pavers utilizing.., as well as repeated that pattern with the restaurant. Within the Americlnn development we have two different types of land fixtures. Another detail.., we repeated that along the street frontage here and... In addition, if you look in your pictures you'll find that within the pictures for the.., pictures, you'll find those elements out 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 in front here with.., entry element and then... That design with the landscape proposed, which again an extension of what we've done over on the Americlnn site.., and again in the staff report you'll see that we're about 116 feet short of... Keep in mind that BRW's master plan for the landscaping has illustrated landscaping off of the site, the wetland which enhances what we're trying to do and works with our site... By taking and emulating the pattern of brick that we utilized in Americlnn, we've taken that and added a connection for the restaurant... That combined with the variety of plant material that we've utilized in here, we show that we have a very attractive site. Very harmonious. Blends in well with the Americlnn project and mostly captures you know again, the flavor of the design elements from BRW's master landscape plan and brings this into a comprehensive, complete picture .... we've also illustrated the location of the trail, the pedestrian trail that comes through and adjacent to the property .... we've also got pedestrian connections between the hotel, the parking lot here with a sidewalk.., again allow for people to flow through... Aside from that, again we've brought in and utilized plant material that reflect... Peterson: Questions? Truman Howell: Truman Howell, Truman Howell Architects. My office is in Wayzata. We've been here before but I don't know that I've been any more excited about a project than this particular one. I think what this project brings to the concept of Villages on the Ponds is a marquee building. And we probably should show you the rendering. I spent all night on it. I'd better show you. It doesn't show well does it? Anyway, the project I think is basically the character is like an Italian, southern Italian building with a very tall entry and it has the emphasis is obviously at the front where you come into the building. We have various color of brick and as you see on the front here, the articulations with the rustication on the very front of the tower there is in... and you'll see that wrapping also around the arches over the windows. The photograph that you see in this rendering here and I think one in your... Now the reason that that is in there ... and so what we did, instead of building that here, we actually put in windows for light in there, even in the one that goes in the bathroom, but we did blank those out.., but instead of seeing this you'll see windows. And for example, on the other project, the earlier project, these were blanked off here and infilled with brick, which we felt gave a nice texture there but we have now those two with glass so that you literally can see... About the third photograph in your book shows the fourth side of the building, which is always a concern, especially here. And the reason that I wanted to leave that in the book for you to see was that we've done several things to change that so that it does not look.., we've added brick. Actually added a window feature. We put columns back here. Also we've put a roof over the top.., so that even when you're walking in that direction, it will appear as a... One of the concerns I know that everyone has is do we see the equipment on the roof. This building you won't see that. You can see all the photos that you're looking at there and in addition we enlarged the height of this particular coping another additional.., probably from Highway 5 .... Highway 5 but someone might be tall enough... The character that you see in the outdoor base of the patio. The hand railing there is similar to what you see at the existing Americlnn .... so that idea is carried through this building and... In terms of the building itselfi inside, the entry will be through a vestibule.., photos that you have and if you'll notice one of the photos in there, I think it's, I don't know what page it's on but it shows an interior with the glass, well I'll show you. This particular photograph, you'll see the glass, the 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 etched glass in the background. If you'll notice this photo, this is of the Lone Oak tree in... and what we're proposing to do, as a matter of fact one of the brighter members of our team, Luke Fowler, suggested that we do the maple leaf for Chanhassen etched in that particular glass... If there are questions, or you want me to tell you move about this as the roof. This is a metal roof. This is the tile which goes on the top of the tower as you come in. We won't have these holes in there. This will be the finish that will be on the exterior. Samples of brick and then the mahogany that you see in the photograph in the interior. If there are questions I can answer, I'd be happy to. Peterson: Questions of Truman? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Could you point out where the false windows are? Truman Howell: It's hard to tell. Blackowiak: It is. Truman Howell: We're dedicating these to Sharmin. She's got four of them on the Americlnn now. This one. No, that's real. The one at the back of the building. This one on the south elevation right here. This one.., on the east and then along on the south.., it is right here. No, here. But you don't know it. I don't know it. Blackowiak: There are two? Truman Howell: There are actually two. Blackowiak: Okay. Truman Howell: One of them.., patio off to the right hand side where the restroom. Peterson: Other questions? Brooks: I have one. Can we see something with a... I actually like the building. The only thing I... is the big red Houlihan's sign. I think it really detracts from what you're trying to do architecturally. I mean you're going with like a southern Italian thing and then boom. This big red sign. Truman Howell: Well, what we were very careful to do was to be sure that we were within the requirements of the PUD and actually it's smaller than what is allowed in the PUD. Brooks: Maybe it's, when I look at this picture and it's like the Houlihan's sign is subdued... Somehow on this building it stands out so much. Truman Howell: You mean in this photo here? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Brooks: I guess what worries me about Villages on the Pond is that we're really trying to do something special and different and the building works but then all of a sudden when I look at the Houlihan's part up front, it sort of begins to look like suburbia anywhere. Truman Howell: Really? We thought it was rather tastefully done. Brooks: The building is. I mean I'm not... Truman Howell: No, no. I'm talking about the sign too. Mark Clarey: One of the things you can do, I mean when you do sit off the highway obviously you want to attract people to the fact that you are a restaurant and let them know which restaurant you are so that you can get... Brooks: I get that part but I understand marketing but I know. It's just that since you guys are the architect, I'm not the architect, I just wanted to mention it in case you had any ideas of how you could possibly... Blackowiak: This is a lot darker. Brooks: Yeah, that's a good point. You know maybe it's a question of darkening the red or making it a brown so that you can see it. You know Alison that's a really good point. Maybe our problem is that the red contrasts so drastically with the building. That's what's bothering me. Maybe a dark red or a brown would... Blackowiak: This looks darker, just on the rendering. It just looks a little more brick red than fire engine red. Truman Howell: That's probably more reproduction issues than.., it was meant to be. Blackowiak: Do you like this? Truman Howell: Well actually I do. I don't find it offensive. The other thing that I really like, and I don't know if you agree with me or not but the telephone booth sitting out in front is also... Brooks: But that's okay because a telephone booth is a period so that works. The Houlihan sign, I'm starting to agree with Alison. I think it may not even be that bad.., but it's not glaring. Mark Clarey: ... on the sides of the letters? There's various ways with channel letter signs and these different retail people paint the returns the sides of the channel boxes... Sometimes they go with black or white or the color of the building to make them blend. These that you're looking at in the photograph here are painted the same color as the actual letters themselves. Peterson: Let me interrupt you for a second. Are we going for a sign, a separate sign permit later or are we going at the same time then? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 A1-Jafl2 Same time. Peterson: I'm getting a sense that it is more taste than anything. Maybe we can hold off on the comments until later and talk more about the recommendations perhaps but.., different opinion of the sign in this case perhaps. Other questions? Comments? Joyce: Yeah I have one. I might be working this through but the only concern I have about the building is the south elevation, which is right on, the interior street there. Mark Clarey: The south elevation? Joyce: Right. And I understand all you had to do to give me that building in there and stuff and I appreciate that. The only problem is that comer, that south elevation is right on the street. Right on the interior street. And I didn't, and now I've looked through this. Is there going to be landscaping there? Mark Clarey: Oh yes. Yes. Joyce: And we'll have additional landscaping. I know you're off.., and I apologize for not asking before but if you could do something with that comer and with, I know that they've talked about the problem of the service area right there. Alan Kretman: What you'll find in the back facade of the building, that we've selected materials large enough that will be displayed against the structure so the landscaping becomes the design element of the south side. I know.., fake window but we also wanted to respect that and keep our landscaping low and underneath that.., but it all works together. We work in harmony in trying to work in the... Joyce: I'm looking here. it looks like there's some additional landscaping right in that comer there and plus there's, the building kind of juts in and there's some relief there too. You can't see that on the elevation so I guess I kind of answered my own question on that. Okay. That's it. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? Truman, I've just got a couple more. One question and then some general comments. I look at, if you could just describe the trash area. It says metal... Truman Howell: ... corrugated metal but a ribbed metal... Peterson: I empathize with your thoughts. I just look at that, and as Kevin says it's going to be very visual. Truman Howell: It will be again, landscaped... Peterson: A second is really more of a comment. As you look at...the north elevation and if you look at the left hand side you have a pitched awning. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Truman Howell: That's actually a metal roof. Standing seam. Right here? Peterson: Yeah. As I move to the right hand side, and you have a straight, I guess my first impression is, it didn't fit. The far right hand. Truman Howell: Oh this one? Peterson: That. Truman Howell: Okay, that's the entry canopy. Peterson: Okay. Truman Howell: That really is very attractive. Peterson: So it is going to be the round curved, okay. That helps because the visual effect of that to me said... Mark Clarey: That's... cedar, tongue and groove cedar on the under side of that. Standing seam on top of it. There's valance lighting that's hidden inside of the valences over two sides and... Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. I have one more question for stafl~ On the lighting section on page 15. You talked about the lighting in the parking lot being a shoebox fixture. And I'll correlate that to the current lighting throughout the development. Are we changing the street lighting? Al-Jarl) No. The PUD ordinance permits shoe box fixtures in parking lots and decorative light fixtures along sidewalks and along the building. Peterson: And I can't remember what's in the American Inn right now, in their parking lot. Is it shoebox? A1-Jafl~ It's shoeboxes. Peterson: Okay. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open to do the same and a second please. Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: Comments. Kevin, do you want to start this one out? Joyce: Sure. First off I'd like to compliment the group that just made the presentation. It was actually one of the most professional, wonderful presentations. It made it a lot easier when you have these kind of exhibits and that so good job. I think it's a very good project. I have nothing, good luck to you. I don't have anything else to say. I don't have a problem with the sign either but I can see how, I can see what Alyson's saying. I can see someone not liking it because it might be a little too garish. A little too loud for somebody. I don't have a problem with it. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah I think it's a wonderful plan. I really appreciate the variety in the architecture. Couldn't find any faults really in what was presented in the staff report. That was a good report and comprehensive and the plans look great. What can I say but let's eat. Peterson: Matt. Burton: Well when I first heard it was a Houlihan's, it made me think of a lot of the ones I've seen out East and I wasn't very excited about it at all because a lot of those are in the malls and don't look, I don't think they look good and have big green signs a lot of times. But I was really pleasantly surprised when I saw this. I think it's a really nice project and I had no problems with it at all. On the sign issue, I don't mind the red. I don't mind the sign that much at all. Perhaps the drawing we have, it looks like the sides of the lettering, there's a black color which I think reduces the red from the side and maybe that would be something that could address some concerns that have been raised but I don't really have a problem with it and I think it's a nice building. I think it's a good addition to this development. Peterson: Allison. Blackowiak: Yeah, I agree. I think the building looks good. I think Sharmin's windows look wonderful. I did not like the bricked in ones in the Eagan restaurant at all so this is certainly a much improved variation. The sign, again I don't know ifI have anything new to add but I do like the rendering. It's not quite as red I guess. Maybe that's where I'm coming from. I like the materials I've seen tonight. I would like to suggest that, I don't know what you're thinking about for street planters, benches, that type of thing but to continue whatever is over at Americlnn or kind of like similar theme so we can kind of start uniting things a little bit. I'm really happy to see an outdoor dining area because I just, that's one thing that we certainly lack in Chanhassen and I enjoy eating out for those few weeks that we're able to every summer. Other than that I think it looks very nice and yeah, good job. Peterson: Alyson. Brooks: I think it's a really good project overall. Absolutely, and I have.., say this is really nicely done. I wish we saw more of this kind of presentation. I like the project. Like I said, the only 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 thing I ask is that you just tone down the red just a little but that's obviously up to you but I also agree, it's going to be a nice addition to... very nice addition. Conrad: Nothing new to add. Good project. Good four walls. Very seldom do we see that. I'll stay out of the signage. I think you've got to do what you've got to do. Mark Clarey: I have to say your staff was extremely helpful and easy to work with. It was my first time. I'm new to the company and organization and.., quite helpful. Peterson: I assume that the sign, that is your standard corporate logo. I had nothing but accolades also, both in the style in the architecture.., of the Villages on the Ponds in many ways I look at the one.., and they made some good recommendations.., being certainly one of their finest presentations as it meets the standards that we set for a very high standard area.., of that also. Hearing those comments, may I have a motion and a second please. Blackowiak: I will make a motion. Brooks: We have a correction... A1-Jafl~ On page 24 of the staff report. Condition number 17. The condition should read, open cutting the street to extend sanitary sewer service from the existing manhole may be permitted. The street shall be restored in kind prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Joyce: Also, condition number 9 was blank. A1-Jafl~ Yes. Blackowiak: So I will make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #98-5 for a 7,443 square foot Houlihan's Restaurant as shown on plans dated April 6, 1998, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 8. We realize that 9 is blank. 10 through 16 with 17 modified to permit open cutting to the street as Sharmin stated. And conditions 18 and 19. Joyce: I'll second that. Peterson: Discussion? Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Site Plan #98-5 for a 7,443 square foot Houlihan's Restaurant as shown in the plans dated April 6, 1998, subject to the following conditions: Should the need to construct the parking space (shown as proof of parking along the north portion of the site) present itself, the applicant will be responsible for realigning the 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 11. existing trail. The applicant shall increase the number of overstory trees, by at least two, planted near or in the parking lot to make up the difference between required minimum parking lot landscaping and proposed landscaping. The applicant shall consider relocating Japanese tree lilacs to afford views of decorative element flower bed from both restaurant and boulevard. Aeration tubes must be installed in islands and peninsulas less than 10 feet wide. The applicant must provide plans and insurance of success if alternatives are requested. The comprehensive landscape plan shall be amended to reflect the shifting of the trees along the northeast lot line as shown on the landscape plan submitted by the applicant. A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control signage. The applicant shall submit detailed sign plans reflecting a individual backlit letters and method of lighting. Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of The Villages on the Ponds recording the final plat and all pertinent documents for the PUD with Carver County. Financial guarantees must be submitted to the City to guarantee all public utility improvements and landscaping. Also, the applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City and provide financial security pertaining to specific improvements on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds Third Addition. No building permits will be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds Third Addition has been recorded. Building Official conditions: Revise accessible parking to meet code requirements. b. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer for a Commercial Building Permit Requirements Checklist as soon as possible after site plan approval Fire Marshal Conditions: Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policies which must be reviewed and followed during the course of the project. The Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policies (of which copies are attached to the staff report) include: 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 12. 13. 14. Policy #01-1990. Policy #02-1990. Policy #04-1991. Policy #06-1991. Policy #07-1991. Policy #29-1992. Policy #34-1993. Policy #36-1994. Policy #40-1995. Policy #44-1997. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with the PUD ordinance. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. 13. 14. 15. 16. Mylar as-built construction plans of the utility improvements will be required by the City upon completion of the site improvements. The grading and drainage plan shall be revised as follows: a) The southerly parking lot shall be redesigned to drain to the existing storm manhole. b) The existing storm sewer along the easterly side of the building shall be relocated a minimum of 10 feet away from any portion of the building or deck. c) Show existing storm sewer on Pond Promenade. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations including a drainage area map for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. The final set of construction plans shall include a traffic signage plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 17. Open cutting the street to extend sanitary sewer service from the existing manhole may be permitted. The street shall be restored in kind prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 18. Responsibility for paving Pond Promenade shall be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit. 19. All parking stalls and drive aisles shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Code 20-1118. The plans shall include drive aisle widths." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Then can I have a motion for the subdivision and a second please. Burton: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #98-5 to replat Outlot D and a portion of Outlot E into Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 3rd Addition as shown in plans dated April 6, 1998, subject to the conditions 1 through 8. Joyce: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Burton moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Subdivision #98-5 to replat Outlot D and a portion of Outlot E into Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 3''a Addition, as shown on the plans dated April 6, 1998, subject to the following conditions: Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements for utilities and parking facilities to be shared between the subject site and the Americlnn motel site. The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract/PUD agreement for Villages on the Ponds. The applicant shall pay the City administration fees for review and recording of the final plat documents. The proposed commercial development of 1.37 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of $5,974.00. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City signing the final plat. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code. Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds Third Addition, is subject to full park and trail fees per city ordinance. One third of these fees will be paid prior to recording the final plat. The 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 remaining lwo thirds shall be paid at the time the building permit is granted. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within lwo weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: BLOOMBERG COMPANIES IS REQUESTING SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL A PORTION OF THE FRONTIER BUILDING~ WHICH IS PART OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX~ LOCATED JUST EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN CINEMA. Public Present: Name Address Herb Bloomberg Clayton Johnson Bob Davis Bob Copeland Amy Roberts Selvig Huseth Debbie Lacer Britta Bloomberg Maita Bloomberg Devine A1 Klingelhulz Bloomberg Companies Bloomberg Companies Design One Chanhassen Cinema National Lodging Chanhassen Dinner Theater Frontier Building Bloomberg Companies Bloomberg Companies 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions for stafl~ Sharmin, do you have a rendering of what we originally looked at when we first started looking at the entertainment complex and what was then, I hate to say a couple years now probably but can you give us a sense and do you have any renderings of that that you can share? A1-Jafl2 This is what the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed.., entertainment complex was proposed. It is intended to have an interfaced brick facade. There are lwo tones of... that would be used on the building. It doesn't spell out exactly which interfaced brick they would be using. However these are the three tones that have.., presented at the previous meetings. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: The whole front was to have been one of those three style bricks essentially. We didn't at the time, I don't recall any side elevations. Al-Jarl) No. It was to be... It was a condition of approval. Peterson: Other questions of stafl~ Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? And if so, please come forward. State your name and address please. Clayton Johnson: Clayton Johnson. I'm Vice President of Bloomberg Companies here in Chanhassen and a little bit of introduction. We've been involved in the downtown development and redevelopment ever since 1986 and I realize now that it's been a while since we've had a project before you because I look up here and I don't recognize, Ladd's about the only one that I recognize. But I think by way of explanation, our role in the downtown development has been two fold. In many cases I would classify us as a passive, as an active partner. We've been a part of the hotel project. We've been a part of Market Square. In all of those projects our role was passive. In other words, we were a landowner. We were an investor and we had a certain amount of influence on the architecture but by all means we did not control. The project that you've referred to here and that Sharmin has presented was the one that you saw I think back in 1995 or 1996. We were not the applicant on that project. That project failed and the reason it failed was a number of things but primarily economic. So when we took over in 1996, Bob Copeland representing Copeland-Mithun and ourselves representing the Bloomberg Companies sat down with staff and we said, it appears this project is doomed. Is there any way that we can resurrect it and bring it back to you in stages or in phases. And as you recall that, a presentation has been made on the cinema project and the cinema project did go forward and our only involvement in the cinema project was one of very strong support. Obviously when we found that we had somebody that was willing to come in and invest a million, a million and a half in that comer and the way it looked, we thought anything was going to be an improvement and we backed that with a $100,000.00 investment. We at the Bloomberg Companies wrote a check for the construction of the parking lot. And the staff report refers to the support that's coming from the HRA and I think I'd like to take that separately. I really think that's an issue that should go to the Council and go to the HRA and obviously this project will not be built if we don't have their support but I don't think it's a Planning Commission item. We're really excited. We've been working at this, as you know, since 1995-1996. We have a plan and we have a plan we're very excited about. It's a comprehensive plan. It deals with all, where this plan when it was submitted only dealt with the front elevation and there was some comment about obviously there had to be something done with the rest of it. Our plan is really comprehensive. It deals with all three sides of the building. It deals with what has become, I don't know if you've been there since the cinema's opened but all of a sudden it's a pedestrian walkway. People are going from the front to the back so our plan addresses that. We've got sidewalks planned and additional lighting planned and some interesting things on that alley. Our plan has two things that this plan did not have. It has tenants. It has financing. And it's a reality. And with that I'd like to introduce, since we're an active owner, we're going to own this property. Mr. Bloomberg has been 100% involved in it's design. He's going to own this and his family is going to own it for the next 50 years. They 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 feel very strongly about the architecture that goes into this. So I'm going to ask Bob Davis from Design One to come up and present the architectural side of this and Bob's association with us is long tenn. He is, at one time was our employee. Is now an independent architect on his own and he and Herb go back a long ways. In fact back to the days of the historic renovation I believe of the St. James Hotel so I'm going to ask Bob to present the plan and then I'll be available to ask questions. And I think during the public hearing, you're going to hear from our neighbors. We've gone out and asked our neighbors what they think of this plan and I'd be disappointed ifa bunch of them aren't here tonight to support us. Okay? Bob. Bob Davis: Thanks Clayton. My name is Bob Davis. I'm an architect representing Bloomberg Companies. As Clayton mentioned I go back with the company quite a ways. I first started working with the Bloomberg Companies in 1965. This building was in existence at that time. In fact it survived the tornado of 1965 which maybe, I don't know if anybody here remembers. I do. I was in the old Post Office building. But we need to get onto business here. I think as I read the staff report, Shannin has said if you agree with this proposal there are some conditions. I'd like to move right onto those conditions and discuss those and review what we think and what we will change and what we think is perhaps inappropriate to change. So ifI take a look at the recommendations on page 9, and there are 11. The first three address landscaping, and I will concede that the landscaping plan originally presented on your drawings was pretty brief and done quite quickly. We have gone to a registered landscape architect and asked him to review the comments, to review the plan and rework the landscaping. That is done. I have a plan here that I'd like to show. If the camera can pick this up. This addresses and does change and is in compliance with the first three items on the recommendation. Do we have anybody here with a good landscape background? I'd sure like to take that up if anybody on the Planning Commission is. Shannin, could you comment on the changes? Look at these and. Aanenson: No. It's too short of notice for us to give any comment at this time. We haven't seen this since the 2nd and. Bob Davis: Well we talked to Shannin about it. Aanenson: I'm the Planning Director and I would advise that at this point we think it's too short of notice to try to comment on that without, just seeing it on the spot. Peterson: Why don't we just go through the rest of your comments. Bob Davis: Okay. Well I want to go back to that a minute though. I concede that we are changing the landscape to comply with the first three items on the recommendation. Peterson: So noted. Bob Davis: Number 4 speaks of the rooftop equipment. There is none. There will be none. This is a curved roof behind the facade. Equipment will be, if it's placed on the ground, will be screened in a mechanical area. So in my mind, item 4 is not an issue. We don't intend to have any rooftop equipment. Item 5 I think, we certainly intend to comply with the ordinance. I'd like 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 to bring up one item on the sign relating to number 6. And specifically lowering the sign. Fred, you have a couple of photographs. I'd like to place before you some photographs of the High Timber Lodge signs and can we pick this up on, this one here. As I mentioned, I've worked with Herb Bloomberg since 1965 and this plan is an interpretation of his design ideas that go back to the origination of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater, the Frontier Lumber Company, and those original buildings which had the frontier character. Specifically the shingle roofs. And this is, do I need to pass these around so you can see this a little better? Peterson: It's coming in clear on the TV here so. Bob Davis: Okay. So you can see this signage and how it relates to the sign. Let me put up another drawing here so you can get an idea, little better of what we are proposing on the building. The south elevation that's been referred to here. The roof is actually above the signs. The existing roof structure. There's a dotted curved line here and that is the roof. Peterson: The height above street level is approximately, the sign? I'm comparing the Timber Lodge. Bob Davis: Okay, so we're, I don't want to guess at this. 20 feet. Peterson: Significantly higher than, you've comparing it to a Timber, the Timber sign which would be significantly less in overall height than what you're offering here, correct? Just a couple questions. Bob Davis: I think we should look at the two this way and look at the proportion. There's been some discussion about the proportion of these. Can we do it this way? Peterson: Well again, the question is, would the signs on this be 10 feet, 20 feet higher than the one on the south? Bob Davis: 20 feet total height. Not very much higher. Probably 4 feet higher. Although I think rather than to guess, we should really have specific numbers and I think we can get a scale out of a briefcase. Peterson: It's not that important of a question. I'm just trying to get scope and scale of what you're trying to do. Bob Davis: Okay. Okay, I believe this is an appropriate adaptation of the back elevation reflecting what has been done on the High Timber Lodge, and we're taking that as a standard. These signs do exist across the front of the Frontier building as well. If we proceed on with these items, number 7 is not an issue with us. I think it's a documentation that has to be met and it's not, the applicant does not have any objection to number 7. Number 8 talks again about rooftop equipment and trash enclosures. There will be no rooftop equipment. Trash enclosures will be designed and will comply when the tenants are specifically in hand and we know whether the requirement is a simple little container or big dumpster and obviously it's an ordinance that has to 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 be complied with. The applicant certainly has every intention of complying with the screening of trash enclosures as to whatever size they will be. Item 9 is documenting some ordinances again which have to be met. I don't think it's an issue we need to talk about. We certainly will comply. Item 10 has three items. It speaks of the corrugated metal, adding a color canopy or adding a color canopy and raising the brick on the building. If we look at the elevation here on the back, this is an extension of the rest of the architecture and design of the Dinner Theater, the furniture store, the front of the lumber building of using wood shingles and mansard shapes and I'm just saying to you, I don't believe we should add a canopy. I don't think it's appropriate. There isn't canopies on the front. We can go across the street and find some but why should we add a few canopies to this building? I think that whole concept should be dismissed and we say we look at these as the same material and the same form and a pitched roof shingles, same color. There was a note somewhere here adding color to this side. I think with the landscaping, the materials, the variation of color, the teal doors, the bronze windows, I think there certainly is color here. Raising the brick on this building, there was some note about using brick on some of these facades. The brick is shown to the window height. I think that's appropriate. I, as an architect stand before you and say this is my choice. This is Herb Bloomberg's interpretation of continuing 45 years of building in this community. The metal siding on the side, and this was discussed with the planning department, and is elaborated here. Can we get a close up of these three murals on the side of the building? Can you see that on your screens or do you want this up in front of you? Why don't you do that. Three dimensional figures on those murals... I should remind you that this elevation is an alley. This is not fronting the parking lot. This is not fronting a street. Yes, I think the applicant chooses to propose this solution. I think it's a good solution. As I say, this is an alley. This is not fronting a parking lot or the front street. So we're asking to drop number 10 from your items of recommendation. The other items, with the exception of lowering the sign on item 6, I think we're in concurrence and I'd like you to consider this proposal this evening as being a good addition to a building that needs a new life. Clayton, is there anything that I've missed in your understanding of what the owner. Clayton Johnson: No. Only that again I would urge you to take action tonight rather than table the issue. This is a project we've been working on for such a long period of time that we finally get to the point where the financing's in place and the tenants are anxious to occupy on or about August 1 and very honestly we're on a time schedule that has to move along and we still have to go through Council and HRA. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Joyce: Can you convince me of the economic hardship of changing the corrugated metal... What are we talking about? Clayton Johnson: Well I don't look at it as an economic hardship. We look upon it as, we've looked at the possibility of putting siding on there. We think siding on that great big wall is ugly. Joyce: So in essence you want the corrugated metal? Clayton Johnson: We want it. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Joyce: That's a look you want? Clayton Johnson: And painted, repainted and put the murals on there which will add some interest and the only other solution that's been recommended is to side it and very honestly, Mr. Bloomberg does not want to put siding on that big massive wall and Bob, I don't know do you. Bob Davis: Well it is a structural wall too. That is the wall. It's not your traditional metal building type of siding that you could take off and replace something else. That is a structural wall. It's heavy gauge steel. It's put together with impact bolts. It is the wall. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Peterson: Go ahead. Brooks: I don't know the history of this building. Can you give me a little background? It was originally a lumber building? Bob Davis: It was a lumber yard. It was built in 1965. I started working for Mr. Bloomberg in 1965, January, and that building was being built then. Survived the tornado. It was a lumber building and a hardware store. Brooks: What I see here are so different from what's there now. Why aren't you just razing the building and then building something new? Clayton Johnson: Let me explain the HRA's participation in all of the downtown projects have always been limited to a pay as you go plan. In other words, the HRA has never come to us and said here's the, the building currently is valued at $800,000.00. The HRA has never come to us and said, tear that down and start over. They've always said, come to us with a plan that you provide the financing. We will be putting about $500,000.00 to $600,000.00 into the building. Right now the building pays taxes of $25,000.00. When we're done it pays $75,000.00. Okay. It's not economically feasible without any kind of assistance to redevelop that building and tear it down, and I describe it, Bob described it as a lumber yard. It's an airplane hangar. It's an airplane hangar. It's an ice arena. These buildings, these baleen buildings are what was used to build ice arenas all over the midwest. It's an airplane hangar. That whole facade is a curtain wall. And by the way in the staff report they refer to the refurbishing of the material. No. That whole wall comes out. That's all new material. All natural materials of wood, and brick and stone. And I've got to tell you, you know I want to explain the passive versus active role. When we were a passive investor in this project that you saw 3 years ago, believe when I go back and look at that, and I look at the notation on the top, and it refers to plastic cornice. I would like you to go with me when I tell Mr. Bloomberg we're going to put vinyl siding on one of his buildings. It just would never fly. He is, in all of his architecture and all of his design, it's natural materials. It's stone, it's wood, it's glass and when he built my house he wouldn't even put vinyl underneath my washing machine. He put stone so. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: This item is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the same and a second please? Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address.., name and address please. Bob Copeland: My name is Bob Copeland. I am one of the owners of the Chanhassen Cinema and I'd like to give you our thoughts on this project. First of all, we want to urge you to approve this project and we'd like you to approve it this evening. We think it's a good design. We like the design and we think it's just a tremendous improvement over what is there now. We also want to suggest to you that you not compare this design that you have now to what was approved 2 i/2 years ago. What was approved 2 1/2 years ago is just not relevant anymore and it's just not an option. As far as the west side of the building goes, the corrugated metal that is in the alley between our two pieces of property, we think it's just fine. We're happy with that corrugated metal there and we don't see a need to do anything with it. Also I'd like to let you know that I, the bowling alley people, the owners of the bowling alley, wanted to come to the meeting this evening. They weren't able to come. They asked me to pass along to you that they concur with what I'm telling you and that they want to urge you to approve this this evening. Basically, I think there are two options that you have before you. One is to disapprove this and the building will stay a warehouse. It will be a rundown warehouse and there will be plywood over the windows and the facility that you see there will be there indefinitely as a warehouse. The other option is to approve this facade as proposed to you this evening and we'll have, what will appear to be a new building here. So I would also urge you to not table this this evening. It needs to be dealt with and we might as well deal with it starting tonight. So if you have no questions, thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Amy Roberts: My name Amy Roberts. I come here representing National Lodging. We're the owning entity in Country Suites and I've never done this. I'm very nervous. Bear with me. I think that everybody here wants to improve what the current situation is with that building and that's really all that needs to be done. We cannot let the situation go the way it is anymore. Everybody driving on TH 5 sees how bad it is. It's one of the first reflections of Chanhassen that you see. And something has to be done. There are many bits and pieces about this that I would see differently done but in the end we need to do something. And another point about this is that Herb Bloomberg did have a great deal to do with the design of County Suites at the time and with the Timber Lounge. And sometimes it doesn't always look that good or sound that good, but in the end when it comes together, it looks like the Timber Lounge. And I think we need to have a little faith. Maybe if you're really, really opposed to some things like the corrugated metal, that there's something that can be done down the road but I don't want this project not done over some of these issues. Thank you. Peterson: Anybody else? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Selvig Huseth: My name is Selvig Huseth and I'm the Managing Director at the Chanhassen Dinner Theaters and have been an employee there for over 20 years and I would just like to say that the ambiance and the feeling that you get when you walk into the Dinner Theater and the hundreds of comments that we get every month from people personally and in letters, how warm the atmosphere and enjoyment that they have at the Dinner Theater is because of the vision and architecture that Mr. Bloomberg has designed. And we don't make a change in the Dinner Theater, even though he's not our owner anymore, without conferring with him about it. We don't change the carpet without asking his opinion on it because we totally trust his design ability and his architecture vision and I think that these ideas that are being proposed extend his whole idea of the whole complex and I totally trust what he has in his head and it's like she said. You know you might not understand when he's explaining. I don't because I'm not an architect. When he's explaining it directly to me but it always ends up looking fantastic. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Debbie Lacer: Hello. My name is Debbie Lacer and I'm one of the tenants in the Frontier Building. I've been there for 8 years. I guess I'd like to say a lot of what Selvig just said in that I think the ambiance over there is very warm and friendly. I know I've stayed there with my company, although there have been many other places that would probably be more convenience in terms of being high tech and easier to load and more storage and whatever, but the ambiance there is a wonderful small town feeling and I think that building brings that environment to our town and I think it's very important that we preserve some of that for Chanhassen. We're growing very fast here. I've been a resident in town for 11 years so I've literally seen the whole of downtown main street developed in that period of time and yet the Frontier building reminds me of some of the historical relevance of this city and I think it's very important that we keep that here. I also know from my business, I do a lot of traveling around the midwest, that we are literally on the map because of the Dinner Theater. I meet hundreds of customers when I'm out and about throughout the Midwest and it has continually surprised me how many people have visited our town because of that theater. And I think because of that I've come to really admire the Bloombergs and what they have brought to our city and I think it's very important, especially since Herb is able to continue to design for our buildings here, that we recognize that talent and we accept and honor the fact that he has done this for many, many years. He is an expert at it. he's built some lovely things for us here and I think it's really important that we maintain the historical value that he brings to our city. I think to continue this building in the manner that he started it and trust the fact that he will finish it tastefully, is what we should look at because that's just as important as whether it's brick in our eyes or someone else's. He really contributes a lot. Thank you. Britta Bloomberg: My name is Britta Bloomberg. I'm a shareholder in Bloomberg Companies. Herb is my father. This has been our home for over 40 years. This has been the place that we've made our lives and have really set down our roots. I want to just make a couple observations about my father's design career. Here in Minnesota he has a statewide reputation for his fine quality of his design, the workmanship, and nationwide he's had a reputation, in particular through the baleen steel buildings of which the Frontier building is. That was a baleen steel constructed 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 building for the lumber yard and hardware store. It also was constructed to be the headquarters of Bloomberg Companies. That's where we had our company offices for many, many years before we moved them to a smaller location. But I think that it's important to really bring some, put some confidence in the quality of the design that has come forward in this. Some of dad's other work that has really a particularly notable reputation in this area, the Old Log Theater, and then Hazeltine National Golf Club, the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. I would really urge you to approve this plan. And I also want to add that one of the reasons that I thought it was important that I come tonight is to let you know that we're in this for the long haul. My father is at a point in his career where he's ready to see us kids become a lot more involved and we really see this as our future. Bloomberg Companies is here to stay and we feel that it's really important to be able to move forward with the plans that are being made right now for how we can continue to conduct our business here in Chanhassen. I think my dad's brought incredible vision to this town over the last 40 some years and I would really urge you to approve this plan. Peterson: Thank you. Maita Bloomberg Devine: Hi. My name is Maita Bloomberg Devine and I'm also one of Herb's daughters as well as a shareholder in Bloomberg Companies and I look at this plan and I just see a continuation of the things that he has done for the Dinner Theater and the Frontier building. Bringing the building from the front around to the back and continuing that so it has a really nice look to the building. People can drive into the back from the other side of town, not from the main street and be invited into the town. I always admired my father's creativity and his design and over the years I've been in a lot of his homes, as well as his larger buildings that he has built and have always been amazed at the people coming to me and saying, being excited about discovering things in his building and being amazed that what has worked for him, they would have never thought of it. I think after all the years that he has done this in this city, that we need to have a little confidence that he does have that vision and that he can see it through. I think he sees things that a lot of us don't. I think the plan is fine as is. I was really pleased with it. I think it's really exciting. I think it would be a wonderful addition to this city. Like it was said earlier, it was built as a hardware and lumber building and it's taking that structure and transforming it into something that's very appealing to the public and it's going to work for retailers and it's going to make a nice addition to this city so I really hope that you will look at this and think it's a good idea and good plan and move forward. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the commission? A1 Klingelhulz: I'm A1 Klingelhulz, long time member of the city ofChanhassen. I can remember when Herb moved out here. The village had a population, I've got the sign home in my garage, of 120 people. That was the village and that included the township and it took an awful lot of courage for a man to come out and put a complex up like he did here in Chanhassen and expect to make it work like he did. It really is a centerpiece of a suburban area as far as the Dinner Theater is concerned. When I was Mayor and I used to go to some of the Mayor's functions down at the city, people asked where I was from. I said I was from Chanhassen. Oh that's where the Dinner Theater is and I think Herb has been doing a real good job for Chanhassen and I can see that some of the things that you see on paper here probably don't look quite right to 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 you now but I can assure you that if Herb has designed this thing, it will look good after a while. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Brooks moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. I assume that nobody wants to be the first one to comment on this one. But Ladd, ifI could ask maybe for your comments. A historical perspective might add... Conrad: Yeah, yeah. Al's been here longer than I have so. This is a tough one. In a lot of cases I want to just beg the question, get out of it. The TIF money confuses me a little bit. I don't understand that. It's not our job but it does, it does confuse me a bit. I have one comment and you approached our meeting on a very negative slant tonight because I think obviously you and staff aren't getting along. You didn't address us. It's them. So whether you had good points or not, I couldn't tell. You were challenging their recommendations. I can't vote on this tonight because I think you might have some good ideas but you didn't tell me why. You went straight to the negatives and you didn't come in and say this is why we're doing this. This is how it fits. This is what our intent is. You went straight to the negatives so I can't react tonight. I think there's some things that you can work on with stafl~ There's some things that you have some definite differences on. There's some things that I can bend on a little bit. I think you have some points but you didn't make those points other than, you didn't make them to make me feel that I could make a rationale decision for the community of Chanhassen. You know we obviously respect Herb. We obviously respect the Dinner Theater. It's a cornerstone of the community. You know it really is. I don't even need to underline that yet tonight's presentation was not what I can say I can make a decision on. So you know, and some of these are real tough to figure out. Once you get into architectural things, it's really tough. I hate us getting involved in that. I really do because we're just individuals that are lay people but you're forcing us to get into that and boy, we make mistakes and to trust us is a tough one for a Planning Commission to do. So I'm going to shut up and basically say, I think you've got to come back. I think you've got to come back with the reasons why we should go with your plan and at interim I'd prefer that you try to iron out a couple of these things. For instance, for instance the alley way. I don't know what it's used for. I don't know if there's going to be any pedestrians on there. We've talked, I've been here for a while so I know some of the things we've talked about. I don't know if we've got traffic going in or out. I don't know if that baby should be closed up or not. If it's closed up, if there's no, if it's just for vagrants out there, then I don't need pictures on the walls back there. But on the other hand, if it's going to be, if we're going to make this an active retail center, I expect something to happen. I don't know what your vision is and you didn't share it tonight so it's, I don't even want to get into the details because I can't make a good decision. I think we should get out of this and have the applicant come back and make a positive presentation in two weeks. Peterson: Kevin. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Joyce: Ditto. That's it. I agree with everything he said. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah I agree. I guess I felt pressured to want to like this, the architecture and the ideas that were put forth. I guess I need to be sold on the project like Ladd said, and many of the points that are in the staff report I think are extremely valid. We're dealing with the design now that is so much different than the one that was presented 2 1/2 years ago I guess and I actually like the one that was the original site plan a lot better than what was presented here tonight. So I guess like Ladd, I don't really want to go on and on and on except that I just can't see this moving forward to Council. Peterson: Matt. Burton: I agree with all the comments so far. I think that we have a very good staff here and... respect their opinions and I think everybody up here does and I think it's important for the applicant to work with the staff and come back with a better proposal than this. Or at least address more of the issues that are out there. I don't like leaving open and saying that down the road something may happen. I want to address as much as we can right now and I don't we can do that with what's been presented to us. And I understand that the neighboring tenants want something going on there. I think we all do. But I think we want to go with more definition than we have now so I agree with my fellow council members that I would table this matter. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said. There have been substantial changes since the initial approval and I think that's a big issue for all us. But also we've got to look at the big picture. We have an entertainment complex. So I would like to know specifically where does the boardwalk go? How is that going to continue? What plans are there for the alley way, like Ladd said? Are there going to be pedestrians going through there? We have to look at that. What's going to happen to the remaining buildings down there? I mean I realize that that's not your issue specifically but these are some questions that I need to have answered before I would feel comfortable moving forward with any kind of approval. I don't doubt the ability of Mr. Bloomberg to do a plan that's going to be wonderful but I think that we're coming from two different points right now with.., what was previously approved and what the vision is today and I think we need to find some common ground and we're not there yet. Peterson: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: I agree with all of the comments. I do strongly feel something absolutely has to be done with that Frontier building. It is not a very pleasant, visual piece on the landscape. I think we all want something.., done. I don't think anybody's against that whatsoever. I do agree with the presentation discussion very strongly. I think it's great that Herb Bloomberg has done these things for the community but I would really like the next presentation to focus on the issue. The building, because I was losing track of why we're here. The issue is fixing the building, which is 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 something I think we all want.., to happen. You know as long as we're giving testimonials, I think our planning staff is very good and has done a lot for the vision of Chanhassen... But I think you have some tenants that you want to make by August? I think coming back in two weeks shouldn't stop that deadline. It's just a matter of coming together and.., if it can happen. Peterson: Thank you. I look at the entertainment complex and as it was originally envisioned and I thoroughly found that to really add a uniqueness and character to the city that I liked a lot. And we have started that entertainment complex by setting a standard with the theater. The cinema I should say, and I really see this building tying more closely to the cinema and farther west than I do tying it to the Dinner Theater that some people have spoke of this evening. Tying it to more of the rustic look and that so I really would, essentially what I'm rambling on here saying is, I really see this tying in much more closely to what the cinema is and what the rest of the entertainment complex is intended to be. And I know there's economics involved in that and sometimes you have to wait for things to happen but I think the intent and our approval back then is, that I feel as strongly today as... I don't see this fitting the design itself with the rest of the entertainment complex that I envision down the road. With that in mind, a motion please. Conrad: Your signal Mr. Chairman is that you saw, and my signal was I didn't get the applicant's good pitch. Your signal was, you saw it and you didn't care for it. I'm not interested in extending out the applicant's, I don't take any great pleasure in wasting two weeks of their time. Well, I'll float the motion. I think before I make it, if you don't like this, the intent for me to table this motion, I've got to tell you that it's to get a better presentation so I can understand the different elements and what they're trying to do. That's my problem. I don't think you should vote for my motion if you read it, you see it, you understand it, don't delay them. Brooks: But within the two week period there's some things. Conrad: Something could happen but they don't agree with stafl~ There's definitely, that's real clear. And we're, without that agreement, you know we're sort of in chaos here. We have a tough time with this one so again I'm going to make the motion. I can't call on your Clayton. But I would make the motion, and Mr. Chairman we should have some discussion after this. I would make the motion to table this item for two weeks to give the applicant time to review a few of the subjects with the ones that are palatable with the city staff} and reduce the number of variances or the number of issues outstanding but to come back in that two week period and give us a proactive approach as to why we should be approving the building as presented. That'd be my motion and my rationale. Peterson: Is there a second to that motion? Brooks: I'd second it. Peterson: Discussion. Conrad: Then don't vote for it if you've got a clear shot because then that's just not fair to the applicant. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: Whenever we table something, I think it's very important that we send the applicant away with the perspective of what we're looking for in return. Ladd has articulated certainly one perspective. I have tried to articulate that architecturally I don't feel as though it fits. I don't know whether the rest of the commissioners have a sense of where you're at in that continuum or you have a different vision and I think it's important for the applicant that you off'er those this evening. That whether we do that after the motion or while we're in this discussion... Conrad: My motion should fail if you really want to provide some design recommendations to the applicant tonight. Anyway. Peterson: ... perspective. Joyce: I think Ladd hit it right on the head. That's why we want to discuss that for because I think cooler heads will prevail. I think in two weeks we can come together, I really believe this, and work this out. Peterson: How do you feel about the difference in architectural style to what the entertainment complex. Joyce: This architectural style, I think a lot of it has to do with taste. I think it's a 1960's style, because that's what the theater, when it was built. And you can pick that away if you want. I mean some people like the 1960's style. That's kind of what their stuff was so in one sense, that's what we've living with right now. That's the building. But on the other side, what I like about what Ladd said is, we have this corrugated wall. How is that going to function inside the development? You didn't tell me that. All you said is we want to keep the corrugated wall and that was that. So you know, is it an alley? Isn't it an alley? Do you want to shut that off'? Fine. I mean if you sat down and thought this through, I mean and give us some positive feedback on what we're going to do there, I'd feel a lot better on just voting on it. My discussion is, I think two weeks of cooling off period and being creative and thinking this through is a lot better than just making a decision, a rash decision right now. Peterson: Design wise you're saying you're open? Joyce: I don't think, yeah I am open to the design. I'm not going to get into an argument over taste once again. I don't know how much authority we have to force certain aspects of the design down. I don't understand the TIF financing either or the HRA involvement. This isn't a PUD. I'd almost like to have two weeks just to digest this myself so I can figure out, I'm a little confused on that. How much authority we have to say.., it's their building. If it was a PUD, I'd say no. If it was a PUD, I'd say I'd like to change this but it isn't. Peterson: LuAnn, your comments? Sidney: Well I think I fall in the area where you know I would like a design change and you know hearing Craig speak I agree with him in that I see this tying more into the cinema complex, 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 that's in the cinema style. Not necessarily with the Dinner Theater style. And I'm trying to think, because you want to use the same materials as what's in the Chanhassen Dinner Theater area but I guess I have a problem with some of the design elements like big canopies reminds me of Menards in Fridley when I look at that and I'd like to see something different and I think you can modify that to make it a little bit more appealing. So you know there are things I think that you know if you're willing to give and take and work with stafl} I think the application could work. But at this point I'm not comfortable with the design maybe as much as Ladd. Peterson: I won't go all the way around. Any other comments regarding that? Brooks: I have one. Peterson: Please. Brooks: Well I think we have to remember that we're remodeling a building and we're not ripping down a building. A question about razing versus remodeling and because we're remodeling I fall on the side of Ladd. Whoa. And there's only so much you can do. I mean anything is better than what we've got. I mean if this situation where Milo, the magic architect was coming in to give us something absolutely fabulous that he always did, I mean and it's over by the Dinner Theater and you know... I think well at least it's blending in with that. If we do something way too funky and we try to push them to do something funky and entertainment like, well then we have style conflicts with the rest of the buildings that are there. The other thing we talked about, Country Suites and Timber Lodge, and I don't find them an architectural beacon. I mean they're traditional, bland, suburban architecture. So I think.., which is remodeling the building.., better. Blackowiak: I don't like to settle. I mean I think we should go for the best possible design that we can get on this site. And now let's not just say well let's just settle for this because it's a remodel. You can do wonderful remodels. I know you can. I want to see the big picture. I want to see how it's going to fit in. I really think we need to look, I want to see where the boardwalk's going. I would like to see a rendering that might show the Chanhassen Cinema next to the proposed remodel of the Frontier. I mean how is it going to fit together? I need to know that before I can approve it. I want to know what's going to happen to the other buildings, and again I said it's not your concern what's happening to those other buildings but if you're doing.., and you've got these four little buildings down on the right there on the southeast comer, they're going to have to address that issue as well because if you're trying to make it pedestrian friendly, nice looking area, we've got some more work to do. I just am not comfortable but I don't want to settle. Again, it's remodel. That's fine but we can make it a nice one. I think we should strive to do that. Burton: I agree with the other comments. I don't like it the way it is now. I think it looks old and dated and I don't think it really fits in at all. I don't think it's right to use the Dinner Theater side as a comparison. First of all this is much higher structures than those are because it's on the back side of the hill. And it doesn't match with the neighboring neighbors. I'm not an architect. I know I don't like what I see. I think to get some more time here and consider the stafl~s 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 comments and meet with the stafl} I think you can come back in short order a different design and a different plan, or at least be able to explain why.., and address the other concerns before tonight. Peterson: We have a motion, we have a second and I think we have plenty of direction. Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Bloomberg Companies for a Site Plan Review for remodeling of the Frontier Building. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Herb Bloomberg: ... they had me build their home on the lake... Hazeltine possibility. I'm not much of a golfer at all hardly but Todd Hefl'elfinger... built a nice home for him and he told me ... invited me to design the build.., and they knew that I had no experience. So we went ahead and did it. The interesting thing was, and the case I think did I mention it was Don... party and he said I wish I had a dollar for everybody who said they wanted to buy my house. In the meantime the same thing happened to Todd and Lucy Hefl'elfinger... They had me build their home overlooking the lake. About this time, about 1976 I was surprised by a magazine that came, this happens to be Business Week .... magazine and there was my face. The Baleen Company had decided to do an advertising campaign, and this was in '76 when the Dinner Theater was kind of on shaky ground. We were really worried.., hoping to survive and we did survive .... pop up in Business Week, Sports Illustrated, Time magazine and so forth. Maybe more that I don't even know about. And what it said, and the comment was a picture of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. But the headline was, ... a Baleen builder builds trust. And that was the nicest compliment I ever had in my life. And some times it takes a little trust. I wish you could re-open your meeting and pass this for me tonight. What could you lose? Would you have that trust with me? I've only worked here for 42 years. I've never had any kind of a hint of a lawsuit or a problem with any customer. From coast to coast. Then ifI say my hometown now that I've been in for 42 years wouldn't trust me enough to finish my own building? I can't believe that. Maybe I'll have to accept it. But I think you'd be better, you'd feel a lot better if you passed that tonight. I think you'd brag about it later on and I know I won't disappoint you. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: Peterson: New Business Kate. Aanenson: Just a reminder, on April 22nd, of the town meeting. I know LuAnn... try to get her neighborhood. We set that meeting from 7:00 to 9:00. The format is an open house style. Have got an article coming in on the Villager which I think will be helpful to understand that you don't have to come at a certain time to make sure you get all the information. It's really an open house. You can come, if you're interested on one issue, two issues, all issues, you can spend as much time or as little time as you want. We'll have the staff people in the different departments there and drafts of the comp plan.., let people know where we are in the process and issues that have been formulated and then also provide them an opportunity to come and.., with the findings or 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 things that we may not have addressed. And that's kind of the kickofl} take that information and digest it and start the process in May. Probably the second meeting in May. I think a lot of that's predicated on the turnout at that meeting and any additional information that we need to have back. We do have the rough draft now.., so that was one key component that we were missing. That's really all I had. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 1, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: The Council will be reviewing the Old Town at their work session on Monday... a wetland alteration permit, there's a series of small segments that we need to get wetland alteration permits... Peterson: No changes to the approval of the trails though, right? Aanenson: No. The location's still fixed. It would just be the wetland alteration permit. Again, the old town, depending on the direction that we get from the Council on Monday night. OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR "OLD TOWN" NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: When you say it needs work. A1-Jafl5 Right now it's an overall ordinance that really doesn't have all of the details worked out and that's what we need to finalize. Such as setbacks. Such as architectural details on buildings. Aanenson: This is what we're showing you is the framework but we still need to get some more.., on that plan and that's what the attorney's office is... some of that detail. Peterson: And that was my simplistic comment, that this is extremely generic.., can't argue anything about it one way or the other. Aanenson: Right... discussion you had last time of whether it would be an architectural, whether it would be an overlay ordinance and looking to the attorney's office to figure which was the best way to format that. What would be the best way to administer goals we were trying to accomplish and their recommendation was really more the... Peterson:... Brooks: Sharmin, I need you to define architecturally significant.., defining what we use.., that's not architecturally significant. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Conrad: I missed two weeks ago so I'm trying to catch up. Kind of reading it in detail, I have a concern. It seems there are a lot of rules and regulations, to take something that I don't have a good sense for it's old or historic inventory and the meetings with the community seem really good. They're just great but it seems to me to be more administration right now for the value that we'll get and for the impact on the neighborhood. I personally am just not convinced of an overlay district. I am convinced of managing the blending or the transition between commercial and this area and to the residents. I'm interested in some of the sites, some of the, well we have control on the Pauly/Przymus property. There's certain cases. Things that I think we have to manage but I'm not convinced of the amount of, I'm really critical of where we're going. Not the intent of what we're trying to do but how we're trying to do it. So a challenge to staff is, well I guess I don't have a challenge. I'd like to accomplish some of the things that we're trying to do but without all the administrative things. You know I'm, as I've read through the Minutes, I can't tell where the neighbors are. It seems like they had a lot of concerns. It seemed like they were caught off guard and that really tells me they didn't net out to a positive, and I'm reading between the lines but I'm not sure where they netted out and I'm not, I have to go back to what I'd like to accomplish there and I only have a couple things. So it's probably beyond me right now. It's probably somebody else with a vision bigger than mine but at this point in time, this seems cumbersome to me and I guess I'm going to have a hard time filling in the blanks isn't going to help me. Peterson: ... somebody try to reflect a little bit some of the historical stuff and Kate and Sharmin can certainly augment this. I think that what in many ways I see what we're trying to do with this ordinance was take into consideration the zone and a lot of desires of the residents and that would be the driving force behind this ordinance is to ensure that that area develops within.., desires of both the city staff and the residents. We thought that this was the most efficient and effective way to do that. Now I'll let the staff say if this is not, then I agree with Ladd but I assume that it is. From the alternatives that I've heard to date. Aanenson: Right. That's how this whole thing got started but some of the concerns, at the process evolved, yes. There has been some discussion on some of these issues and...that happens through the process. Not everybody's in concurrence on everything. The plan was started to make sure that we mitigated some of the impacts that were happening because of the changes down there. What was happening to that neighborhood. And that's the purpose of the plan, to try to mitigate those. I think a good word that Ladd used, the blending. How do you do that blending? And we researched a lot of difl'erent ways to try to look at a tool to do that. This is the way we came back and Ladd's right. It may be too cumbersome. Conrad: I wouldn't want to own a home there. And because it just, well. Aanenson: ...burden that comes with the lot and a lot, it's an issue. I agree. Conrad: There are some really great things in what they're doing or saying and so make sure you hear me Kevin. There are some real, some up front issues. You find the name of the game is figuring out up front where we're going and that's what's being done very well. But it's 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 cumbersome. If you wanted to build a nice modem home in that area, and I don't know what the neighbors are saying but I don't, you can't do it. I don't know ifI know what I'm talking about but I have to hit so many, I wouldn't want to be a builder to go into that neighborhood and tear down something and put something up. I don't think you could build something that would, I don't think you'd find anybody that could build in there. That's just one minor thing. There's some transitions that are just great to resolve right now. Just great to get, but I wish I had better vision and better direction for the stafl~ I just, the overlay district for Highway 5 was very valid. Cumbersome I think for a lot of the developers but still pretty valid. This is a big deal. This is not as big as I think we're making it. Brooks: Let me add a point of debate here though. Suppose like Rottlund Homes comes in and decides well we want to mm the whole thing, we're going to buy.., and mm the whole thing into just another Rottlund. I think the whole point of it is to try and keep a neighborhood and maybe... Conrad: But they could do that to my neighborhood too and they won't. They just absolutely won't so that's not a good example. Give me another example. Brooks: K-Mart? Conrad: Yeah, I'd buy that. Joyce: We got into this thing we wanted to protect the resource but maybe the resource will protect itself or something like that. I don't know. Conrad: A lot of it will Kevin, yeah. Brooks: ... we want to keep the flavor of a neighborhood. We don't want to burden anybody. Conrad: Okay. Brooks: I think the question is, how do you keep the flavor of a neighborhood. Conrad: Tell me what pitched roofI can put in there? Brooks: We're losing through.., it's like we're losing everything. We're losing the farms. We're losing the town. It's a high priced zone. Conrad: The historic nature of farms is very valid. These houses in that neighborhood is not historic. There are a couple houses in there but so why are we doing that to them? I don't know. Brooks: I don't think we're trying to do anything to them. I think we're just trying a character. And maybe you're right. By an architectural board it's too cumbersome. Conrad: I have no need to do that. If they do, I'd like to hear them here. I guess I'd like them en masse to be in here demanding and I'd give them a district to protect or protect them. But don't 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 let that influence the other zones or areas in here. There's some other things that are real valuable in terms of like transition from St. Hubert's to the neighborhood and other areas. I think those are good things to fix right now, or to forecast where we're going but I don't know. That's where I'm at. Peterson: Other comments? ... more of a general response? I don't want to re-open it tonight to residents. I know some of them are here. You'll have an opportunity later to certainly come to a public hearing but. Aanenson: I think what we'll do is kind of, when we come back with, depending again what happens at the Council, come back and kind of try to reframe the issue. Where we've been. What options were explored and.., the ordinance some other alternatives. I mean Sharmin and I were talking about this. There's always the opportunity to stick with the core parcels. You don't want to spot zone but make it a core parcel and then put guidelines but you can put guidelines on some of the other areas, say residential. That's all they are. But we'll give you some of those options and again try to go back and see what areas.., a transition zone. Where things could in those transition zones affect the.., and what some of your options are. Hopefully that will be helpful. You know we've heard from the neighbors. There are concerns. Peterson: And our intent certainly was that it was the benefit of the neighbors equally to the city itself so. Aanenson: When we have additional rules, it's not seen as a benefit. Peterson: Other comments? Enough direction? A1 Klingelhulz: Mr. Chairman, I feel.., through all these meetings.., opinions of what should be done... Peterson: Kate, do you want to open it up tonight or do we have? Aanenson: We know, we certainly know what their comments are. Peterson: Did the citizens, have you voiced your concerns with the staff'? I mean do you. Audience: I would say that we... Brooks: What was the direction you gave us? Audience: Look at the.., looking at the whole area... Brooks: So it sounds like you're not against preserving the character, it'sjustthe method of preserving the character. Audience: Well I think if we were a part of the decision making... 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: How do you feel about, one example being losing potentially the character of the style of homes that is next to you. A dome home going in next to you. Possibility. How do you address that issue? If you see it as an issue. Audience: Well I think that you know.., at the last meeting when we brought, there were only probably four homeowners present and what started out as a broad... St. Hubert's property, the Schlenk property... When we saw this.., we thought we were seeing what.., we're talking about our own homes. Excuse me, I have pictures of what old town Chanhassen looked like and it's nothing... You've got amish mash of homes. You've got littered yards. We need some ordinance to clean up the yards but we don't need any more ordinances about what's going on as far as what we're building. My issue has been, I don't want to see the light pollution in our area and I would.., and the report comes back opposite of what I've been saying. And that's, that makes me uncomfortable because now all of a sudden... I don't think so. Peterson: Are you saying that lighting is essentially your only concern or what are the other concems? Audience: ... I see a lot of light pollution in Chanhassen. The building I was told to look at, the CSM building on Dell Road and Highway 5...outside of the building. Now we're lighting buildings? You know.., at the edge of where I live. So what I'm saying is, leave our... Peterson: Other than lighting then, you're saying kind of let it develop naturally and without a lot of rules and regulations is what I'm hearing you saying. Audience: We are already developed. I think we would like something to put on what's going to happen, we're going to lose the residential corridor when St. Hubert's sells to Chapel Hill. This was our opportunity to have a little say about... It's frustrating. We don't need to focus on ourselves right now. There's too much development... Peterson: Good comments. Other comments? Stafl} I think you've got some additional feedback. Councilman Berquist: ... I've attended.., one of them I was at for a short while so I've not been privy to all the discussion. But I want to say.., what was perceived to be an asset of a remnant of the original town of Chanhassen. The whole thing started when the HRA chose to take out the old Pauly/Pony site for... The proposal came through for anybody to come in there and build something. At that point there was a flurry of activity from a variety of people with the idea that there should be some protection to that area... There was never any intent... So that's what originally instigated this whole thing. The purpose, like I said before was a method by which the purpose is achieved however may by necessity.., be as messy. I think when it all shakes out... guidelines for the area. How the area redevelops. And I'm sorry that the neighbors and the property owners in the area and St. Hubert's feel as though the process has become burdensome. I understand that. It seems somewhat like that's... 46 Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 1998 Peterson: Well said. I think the intentions have always been to the best interest of all parties. Audience: ... one additional comment to add... Peterson: Thank you. May I have a motion to adjourn. Conrad moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 47