Loading...
PC 1998 05 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 6, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Matt Burton, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator BLOOMBERG COMPANIES REQUESTING SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL A PORTION OF THE FRONTIER BUILDING, WHICH IS PART OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX, LOCATED JUST EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN CINEMA. Public Present: Name Address Nancy Mancino Vemelle Clayton Robert Davis Fred M. Oelschlager Clayton T. Johnson 6620 Galpin Avenue 422 Santa Fe Circle 9973 Valley View 7410 Chanhassen Road 1808 Hillside Lane Sharmin AI-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Other comments to staff'? You talked about architecturally you said that.., the recommendations are relatively vague in the conditions. Can you expand upon it a little bit more as far as what you were looking for when you talked about the roof.., is that really it or how do you see the building? You define it that significant and architectural differences between.., where are you at in that recommendation? A1-Jaflk Well right now the roof edge proposed it has one large roof with no breaks in it whatsoever. It lacks in architectural interest. We don't want to design the building for the applicant but we're making suggestions and one of them would be for instance utilizing dormers. That would give the roof line some interest. The same is used on Country Suites. You can also find something similar on the Dinner Theater so those would be just suggestions. Also with the brick. Right now you have veneer brick along the bottom of the building only. That could be extended up higher. You can see that along the Frontier building facing West 78th. That would give additional architectural interest to the building. Some type of siding has to take place along the alley. Again, that hasn't changed. It's still corrugated metal and staff does not believe that Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 this is, what the applicant is proposing, we don't believe is an acceptable solution. Our conditions of approval basically addresses the roof as well as the addition of some type of siding. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Conrad: Sure .... and this probably doesn't have anything to do with the application right now but do we have, is there a bigger vision for that back side area of the Dinner Theater? You know we've got a neat parking lot there now and the back side of the Dinner Theater is really pretty ugly and there seems to be, it seems to be an area that has some potential. It could be an entertainment area. There could be more than what we're just talking about right now but do we have a vision for that? It just looks outstanding. It looks like it's a cul-de-sac with all sorts of potential. To block off really the back side of the Dinner Theater, which is a functional area. Which is a working area, but in front of that, towards the parking lot, is anything happening? Aanenson: I can address that in a couple of ways. One, I think they've attempted to screen, such as the outdoor storage for Maytag and the dumpster so that's going to help to clean up some of the back but as you go further down, as you pointed out, one of the things that we are looking at now, which you may not be aware of. We undertook a parking study looking at the mix of uses and the potential for additional development back behind the Dinner Theater which would help screen and we want to still enhance the back of that. The applicants may want to talk to what they're looking at as far as further enhancing that property specifically but they are working to screen and enclose some of those storage areas and again put in additional development on the back of that area. Conrad: And it's an aside. It really has nothing to do with what we're talking about but it just looked like great potential. We have an entertainment area back there and you can put, theoretically we can put something up to screen the Dinner Theater and the working parts of that, yet making it something really quite attractive in that area. Anyway, that's an aside. The vision for the alley. What's our vision? You know the hotel side of it's not a pretty thing either so what are we doing? Are we cleaning up one side, the corrugated side versus the other side or what are we going to end up with? A1-Jafl~ The alley will be paved. The sidewalk. Conrad: The gravel will go, okay. Al-Jarl) That will go. It is intended to be pedestrian friendly. Heavily traveled. Conrad: And the wall, on the inside of that whatever, what's happening to that wall? It is a pretty ugly wall there so. On the Country Suites side. A1-Jafl5 On Country Suites? Conrad: Yeah. There's an office and there's a pretty ugly wall there so we're making recommendations to the Dinner Theater side but I'm just curious what we're doing to the other. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 I'm trying to set a standard you know as I, we take a look and making them upgrade it. This one side is bad and the other side is good, you know what have we accomplished? A1-Jaflk When Timber Lounge went in the, we completed the wall was stucco. Conrad: You took it back about 20 feet or so. A1-Jafl~ Yes. Conrad: And the rest of the wall between that and the entertainment center is pretty bleak. So I'm just, my question is, what's happening to that? Is it staying that way? Is that the way it is is my question? A1-Jaflk We're talking about the wooded, the area... Conrad: It looks like concrete block and I'm not sure if I've got a good... Well the cinema has some really nice concrete to the surface of it but between that and the front of. A1-Jaflk That will be restored as part of the cinema. Conrad: It will be? A1-Jaflk It will be restored, yeah. Conrad: Okay. So our vision is a walking alley? Aanenson: Right. That's why we put the lights in there so people can park in the front. Go to the Timber Lounge and we wanted to make it inviting... Conrad: ... okay. And that's still our vision? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: That's what we want to do? Okay. Aanenson: That was our concern about this side to making sure we still have that continuity and I think that kind of goes back to Alison's question that she had last week and how does this tie into the vision and I'm not sure that was articulated last time. How this works into the vision we had before of keeping that. Conrad: Okay. Next question. Do we care about TIF? Aanenson: No. Conrad: We don't. Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Aanenson: I think you should know that it's there but that's ultimately for the Council... Conrad: We don't care ifthey're got money. Aanenson: That's always been the planning, Council. Information to know but it's really the Council's decision ultimately. We're holding this to the standards that we believe it should meet. The Council will ultimately... Conrad: So we don't care if they get money from, it's not our job. Okay. What governs the metal wall? What is the ordinance... ? A1-Jafl2 The site plan standards, architectural standards prohibit corrugated, prohibits metal. You can use it as an accent or... top of the roof but that's it. It's... Conrad: Site plan standards. What's that? Aanenson: The zoning ordinance. It is in the zoning ordinance for design. Conrad: Okay. Last question. What governs the signage and the location ofsignage? You're recommending bringing it down. Aanenson: That's in the sign ordinance. A1-Jafl~ And there is a variance... Conrad: We're letting them have it. We're just questioning where it should be? A1-Jafl2 Correct. One of the conditions of approval of the variance is to bring it down. Conrad: And if we didn't like to bring it down, how could we rationalize not bringing it? How could we rationalize leaving it where they proposed it? What would give us the feeling that we could not follow the ordinance? Aanenson: If we were to go through the variance procedure and the criteria you'd look at that. Maybe you would say because this building's so architecturally significant that it merited something, a different type of a treatment. Some criteria such as that. I guess that's what we're saying is not there. Conrad: We need a positive. We need something. Aanenson: Well there's a hardship such that there's absolutely no other way to do it. That they would be denied something that everybody else has a right to visually see a sign. Something like that. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Conrad: Could it be that? As we take it under, and you once take it off the roof, which is what they've done on the other side which would be real, that would be the integrity of the building. Aanenson: Although what they did do some different architectural treatments such as dormers that may be more difficult to put those up there. Also, they're significantly higher on the back side than they are on the front side. I understand what you're saying, that it would mirror what's happening on the front but these are a lot higher. Our sign ordinance only allows, the highest sign we allow is 20 feet and that's where these are. So it's really almost like a free standing sign. I'm not sure where your sight line's going to be. 20 feet seems pretty high for that type of traffic but. Conrad: You can't see the sign from the street?... Aanenson: No, I'm not saying. I'm not sure that that's, are they marketing to Highway 5? Are people... Conrad: No, we're giving them. They don't have a street frontage and so... there's no visibility except in the parking lot. Al-Jarl) The parking lot, you will be able to see... Burton: Yeah, I'm looking at the staff report and it talks about lighting and then it talks about the lights on the east side. No, on the west side. Are there any other... Al-Jarl) The applicant is not proposing any light fixtures on any other elevation. As far as parking lot lights, those are already there and they were constructed as part of the cinema. Burton: You don't think that.., lighting on the east side, on the front or south?... Peterson: Questions? Blackowiak: I have another quick question. One of the conditions talks about the brick being higher. Can you define that? Do you have a specific height in mind or? A1-Jafl~ Well it would be extended up to the roof line, similar to what you see along the north elevation facing West 78th Street on the Frontier Building. Peterson: Other questions? Burton: Yeah, one more. On the same condition.., that would minimize the appearance of the corrugated metal and I believe I'm correct in that.., whole side covered. A1-Jafl~ Correct. Peterson: Any other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission tonight? Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Clayton Johnson: Hi, I'm Clayton Johnson again from the Bloomberg Companies and I thought before Bob Davis runs throughout plan, I did want to give you, have an opportunity to answer your questions that were asked last time. I felt the public hearing was closed and there were a number of questions that were asked that we didn't get a chance to address and one of them seems to be we can't seem to bury this old entertainment center and I tried to make the point and is that the entertainment complex, as it was presented, is dead. It never got built. And our plan is a totally new plan that, a plan for the Frontier Building. It's the first time it's been presented. I think we've been characterized as all of a sudden changing the plan. We never changed the plan. We are a new applicant with a new use for all the Frontier Building. And there are several things about the old plan that you all raised concerns about that you know you don't like the new plan as well, or functional that relates to the use that we have found. And you know if you have any questions about that, the issue of TIF and some of those things, you know I'd like to be able to answer those. Some of those were asked last time. You must have concerns. Conrad: TIF is not our job. And to be honest with you, I don't know what the entertainment part was. Clayton Johnson: Yeah, as far as the vision, we've got a vision for the balance of the property to the rear. It's been, we've presented it on more than one occasions to the HRA. It involves, Herb's always envisioned an office use on a part of that property and I don't know if you're familiar with the current MLT proposal but basically that's an out growth of Herb's vision. A complimentary use to the Dinner Theater with the parking that is already there for the Dinner Theater would be able to be used during the day. We also envision further retail uses on the east side. However we didn't, you know we're not able to address those. There are current leases on those properties. Those tenants have rights and by agreement we presented this as a phased project and we're dealing with the Frontier Center right now. The east elevation is being addressed. You know the parking lot made that east elevation very visible. There's no question about that. And over there we were faced with four different types of material that we were trying to cover. So the decision was made to panel or to side that whole thing because it really was the only solution that would have been attractive. On the alley side on the other hand though, we simply disagree. You know the code issue is on new structures. This is an existing structure and very honestly we just have a very honest disagreement about what would look better. Herb thinks that a combination of the structural field panel with the billboards that we're going to erect there, and the way it's painted out, is going to look better than siding it. And it's about a $7,000.00 issue. We will side the building but we think it's a mistake. We think that siding on that big structure and that little alley is going to be less attractive. But that's not, that's just a judgment call. Otherwise I'd like Bob Davis to run through, I think the last time, parts of the presentation got missed and so Bob's going to run it through real quick for you. Bob Davis: Good evening, I'm Bob Davis. I'm back. Our program here is to rework a building that is 33 years old. Was a lumber yard. It was a steel, metal structural building. I don't want to argue the point. The metal has been there 33 years. We think we can live with it in the alley. We hope you can live with it in the alley. It's not a driving street. We are adding a sidewalk down the alley. People can cross over. But let me go on with some of the items that we're covering 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 here. The design is based on a retail space, what the owner would like to do, and the character of the Frontier complex. And let me go a different direction and remind you what the other buildings look like. Can you focus on the... One of the things that you'll see is a mansard, on almost all of these facades and the last work that Bloomberg did was the High Timber Lounge and that has the high mansard. It has the signs in front of it. Let me pass this around so you can get a good close- up look of it. On this building we're using the same architectural feature of the mansard roof. We're using the same sign pattern. We're raising, or rather lowering the glass on the existing old lumber yard building is 16 feet high. We're lowering it to 10 feet. We're bringing the mansard up here to lower the appearance of the building. This is a structural metal building that in all purposes here on the south side is being covered up. We think it's retail friendly. There are some tenants that would like to lease space here. If we go to the top elevation, the east elevation, as Clayton mentioned there were three different kinds of material on that side. There's some block. There's some wood. There's some metal. The solution is to side that whole panel. It's far more visible to the parking lot. Actually both parking lot areas, but the alley we feel that the metal siding which has been there, can remain. It's a narrow alley. It's not our vision that people would drive down that alley. But if people choose to walk, there is some interest created by these billboards which would have a theme of the history of the community. Let's look at the colors. ... we're looking at a silver, gray on that area where the side is. We're looking at a teal color, which is this color accent for the doors and trim. The brick is a red brick, similar color.., building in front. If we take a look at that, the brick does not go higher than the, the brick has columns but it isn't a high wall of brick anymore. The whole brick idea is the same panel that is used all the way around the complex as a wood siding that comes up... and it's 30 inches high and.., all around that whole block area. I think it's inappropriate to carry the brick all the way up. I would not choose to do it. I guess I don't want to argue the point... It's a building that really needs a new life. I think all the landscape questions you had last time have been resolved. If you take a look at this. We're quite intensively landscaping three of the comers... This is the alley here from the main street side down to where the cinema entrance is across the way here. This is where the sidewalk is added. The front of this building would be the south side and the entrance of the retail space has sidewalks. The suggestion about flower boxes I think is a good idea. Something that certainly this time of year, if somebody will maintain, could be a nice spark of color. This area will be highly landscaped.., and I think we all agree that we're screening the air conditioning units. We're screening the dumpster areas and we're screening some of the loading docks. I'd just like to ask if there any other questions that I can help clarify? Does anybody have anything that needs further explanation? Conrad: Talk to me about signage a little bit. Do you want to talk about that now or should we do it later? Bob Davis: Yes. I think we're matching the High Timber Lounge signage. That has a high mansard roof. The signage is up high. I think this is the place to put the signage. It's on a parking lot, it's not on the street. If you take the cue from all this other frontier complex, the signs are the same. We're matching what we're doing in the high, what we did on the High Timber Lounge. I think it's inappropriate to pull them down under the mansard. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Clayton Johnson: ... we're designing a retail building with a lot of flexibility. The whole... In other words, we don't know exactly how many square feet... One of the reasons for putting the signs on the roof is because we don't know how many tenants we're going to have and how many signs. Once you go to the suggestion, and to bring the signs down below the mansard, you end up with three spaces because there are posts that allow for three spaces. If we were to do that, then we'd have to have the flexibility of going over and putting the signs on the wall, because we don't know how many tenants... So that's one of the reasons. Vemelle did you have... Vemelle Clayton: ... You talked about the signage being, I think it's a real part of architectural element. I guess I'd disagree with the staff report. I think if the signs were on the mansard roof it could be considered to do that. I also, from a perspective, and this frequently unless they're talking about the development and this particular case of while historically I would assume the same thing for the same building. This time I am involved in working with someone who is wanting to be a tenant there and signage is very important to them. They are not at all happy with having signs under the, what we're calling the mansard roof and I don't believe it's a roof but under the mansard. It's not very visible. It's not going to be very easy to have attractive looking signs. There's going to be no background for the signs because behind the sign will be the clutter of the windows and so forth. And visibility is important. If you go out, if you go and sit in the back of that parking lot, coming off Pauly Drive, they will want to be able to be seen from people driving up, not only once you get to the parking lot. So I think that the building will look better with the signs on the roof. I think the mansard will look better with the signs on it and I think it will look better for the building because all the rest of the signs are on what we are calling roofs. Now as I said, I don't think that the roof, I think it's just an attachment to the wall which historically all mansards are anyway. They're not roofs. They're walls. They were made originally to avoid having to pay taxes on wall space in Europe so they really are walls but I guess I just want to be clear that it will be a disadvantage and a hardship for the tenant if they don't have signage that is easily seen because that's a remote spot. I also wanted to mention something about the alley while I have a chance. Historically I've been involved in two projects that related to the alley. Always it was seen.., pedestrian oriented walkway. On the last go around, when we talked.., kind of lumped together as a "entertainment complex". Which started out as kind of an acronym and kind of got to be... but there's nothing that says that legally it is. We just kind of called it that. At that time the alley was perceived to be something that we would hope to be a little bit fanciful. Kind of fun. At the time we were at the dialogue during the presentation as it were, that based on the comments.., even graffiti, planned graffiti... So to summarize then, I think this is, his ideas of the representations of some of our history, with the train, the farmer, and the Indians I guess, or whatever they are. Frontiersmen, okay. Yes. Are kind of a good, a nice kind of fun, intervening kind of thing and I'd like to see those there. I think they're kind of cute. The other side of the wall, just to be perfectly, to clarify, the other side of the wall, everything that is opposite that is the cinema. The hotel starts farther to the north. That's all cinema. They're going to paint it. I think they're past the rough spots and it will be painted. So it's not going to be anything really gussied up. It's just going to be painted. So we need a balance. And whether you like the corrugated or not, I think the corrugated with the signs, with those, are a lot more fun, I'm sorry, than a flat surface of wood boards. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Peterson: Other questions of the applicant from fellow commissioners? ... can answer it obviously. One of the staff's conditions that I alluded to earlier was their condition about adding architectural interest to the mansard roof. Can somebody respond to that? I mean are you thinking of entertaining that idea? No pun intended there. Bob Davis: No. It would be truly a fake dormer for nothing, would serve no purpose. I mean ifI can see it was a ventilation for something or it was a window to someplace or, the one on the Dinner Theater actually has a function. I don't want to get caught up on just adding something because somebody thinks it looks better than somebody thinks it looks. I think we need to take the direction from the owner of the building, from the retail tenants who are here and from the frontier complex itselfi which really started the idea of the wood shingle roof and shingle mansard. And it's 35 or 40 years old. Peterson: Not putting words into your mouth, you're saying that architecturally right now, the way you presented it is where you want it to be. Bob Davis: Yes it is. Peterson: A number of the conditions that the staffhas presented, you're still not in support of is what I'm hearing, right? Bob Davis: I think my charge was here, not to be argumentative. Peterson: ... clarification is where we're at. Bob Davis: But no, I stand on that.., what is the dormer for? Aanenson: To add interest to the building. We have fake dormers throughout the entire community. We have them on the hotel next door. I mean your picture doesn't go to the building next door which has pitched roofs. We put them on the new hotel going in. We have fake windows over there too. It's to add architectural interest instead of the mansard roof. I mean people do that all the time. Bob Davis: I think I'll let the owner of the building, if you want to negotiate that, I'll let it go there. Clayton Johnson: I ran it by Herb tonight. You know I guess what do you do? Do you tell Picasso to make the ears bigger on the drawing? I don't know. I'm in the middle but basically we presented that and Herb's vision is that's his architectural vision. And he doesn't, you know the dormers on the Dinner Theater are functional. They're offices. There are windows. I don't know what they did on the hotel. We didn't build the hotel but yes. I ran it by him. You know there are things that we're willing to compromise and things we're not. We unfortunately, you do have to understand the economics a little bit because there is this conception, or there is this perception the city's going to pay for it. The first thing that happens is, we spend a halfa million dollars, $550,000.00 remodeling the building. The second thing that happens is are taxes go from 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 $25,000.00 to $75,000.00 a year. We have to make an economic judgment that what we do to that building is going to functional and going to be of interest and going to be rentable. So when it comes to that, and I'm faced with making the economic decision, who do I rely on? I will rely on Herb. That was the whole purpose of bringing the people here the other night. They weren't here to off'er testimonials of Herb. They were here as neighbors saying we like his architecture. We're happy with his design and as an officer of the company I have to bet on that. We are going to be dependent on the financial success and we have had a long history of building buildings that people like and will occupy. So I don't know what more to say. It's an honest disagreement. We're not disagreeing to be disagreeable. It's an honest disagreement. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, this is not open for a public hearing so I'm just looking for comments from my fellow commissioners. Fred Oelschlager: Can I just say one thing about, Hempel right? Hempel: Yeah. Fred Oelschlager: I'm Fred Oelschlager with Bloomberg Companies. I've been with him for 40 years and to address the questions you had about the sheeting of the water coming down the side of the building. Sharmin and I talked about that I think the first part of the week and shortly after our conversation Steve Kirchman called me because I did talk to him and bring it up to him and so forth. And we had about a 15 minute conversation on the phone about the sheeting of the water on the alley side of that building. And the reason there's gutters and will be gutters on the east side is because we have an erosion problem if we don't have gutters on the east side. That's the Dinner Theater side. Steve basically does not have any problem, in our conversation with the sheeting of the water coming off of that balen roof, which is an oval roof. It comes off uniform. It doesn't shoot out more than about a foot to 18 inches when it does come down. He wanted to know the volume of water that would come off of there. We're researching that right now. He is not insistent upon a gutter. He says it's not necessary. If we have a problem and gutters would have to be used somewhere in the future, we could address it at that time. As of now, the water would come off in a sheet. Hit this flume and still come out every 30 foot intervals underneath the sidewalk into the alley, like the cinema is doing right now. Clayton Johnson: And into the storm sewer... Fred Oelschlager: Right, right, because there are storm sewers... So if that answers your question about whatever. Okay. Peterson: Do you want to respond? Hempel: Mr. Chairman. I guess I'll disagree a little bit with that. During the summertime and so forth I'll agree but during the late winter, early spring where we do get a lot of freeze/thaw, that dripping will have icicles. You'll have icicles dropping off the roof as well onto a sidewalk area so I guess I would strongly recommend the use of downspout roof gutters is the recommendation. And also there is a storm sewer down the alleyway. They're not proposing to tie into it. It's 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 simply a gutter drain underneath the sidewalk and flow out into the alleyway which is acceptable. The cinema's doing it that way but I would think from an icicle standpoint, that you'd want to look at doing something with that. Fred Oelschlager: Can I just rebuttal on one thing. I meant to mention that at the top here also. ... because water can't away.., sheeting operation like that.., never have any problems on that building. We did have icing on the cinema building.., but putting a gutter on the alley side would cause more... I mean I've been here 40 years, I know what that roof does... Peterson: ... another disagreement. Fred Oelschlager: Well Steve, when I talked to Steve he said if we do have problems.., and maybe we can make adjustments at that time. Peterson: LuAnn, do you want to start this one out? Sidney: Sure. I'd be happy to. I had a lot of thoughts about this application and I guess maybe I'll start off with kind of the overall issue that I'm kind of wrestling with and I think the applicant has talked a lot about blending architecture. You know continuation of the architecture from the rest of the complex and I guess I'm having a hard time with that because on the south side of the building now we started a different type of architecture with the cinema and I would think that that would be the focal point where your architecture would tie in to any other buildings that would be developed in that area. So I think the idea that, you know the architecture should reflect the Dinner Theater architecture, I'm not sure if I'm really convinced that it should. And I see this building as a transition between the cinema and the Dinner Theater style of architecture. And at this point I see it more closely tied to what you've already done and it, to me it isn't really showing some you know new type of innovative design that would kind of enhance that south side of that whole complex. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a little concerned about still the overall architecture and your insistence on a mansard roof but you know I can see where, you know I can live with it but I'm still rather confused by it not tying in with the cinema. Fred Oelschlager: Can I put... Peterson: Let's go through all the comments. I don't think we're going to get response to every one of them so. Sidney: So I guess that's my overall concern and I think when this was presented to the HRA and City Council, you know you were to the point where you were talking about colors of bricks and basic architecture was discussed at that time and I see what was presented at that point, tying more into what the cinema has developed into at this point. So I'd like to jump to a few other points, specific ones about the corrugated metal. I'm concerned that, I don't think we want that on the side of the building to be visible. We can see it in your photo and we're remarking about that and I don't think it really adds to the appearance of the building. And so I would really want to see us strive for a higher quality material on that side of the building. A few other things. I guess my concern, I guess there's a lot of concern about the signage and I think I'm in agreement 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 with the applicant at this point because I do think the building needs to be really supported by a visible sign. It's in a remote location. I think the applicant does need a break in terms of signage. I'll see if there are some other things that I could comment on here. Maybe I'll leave it at that and have the other commissioners comment. Peterson: Thank you. Matt. Burton: I sort of feel like I'm being pressured to like something that I really don't like.., like very much. As we discussed at the last meeting, this is anticipated to be one of the most frequented areas of the city. I think the staff has.., held it to higher standards, sort of like the theater and what I think the entertainment complex was envisioned to be. And I don't see this design meeting those higher standards and in terms of just general appearance and design and materials, as LuAnn mentioned, I do not like the corrugated metal on the side. I think that putting, finishing the side really almost anyway it would be an improvement to what's proposed. I find the front to be unappealing. I don't think taking the 78th Street Frontier complex look around to the back translates very well aesthetically. I think, I tried to figure out why and I think it's just because it's so much bigger in the back and so much higher that it just, I don't believe it works and I know that's a fundamental disagreement that you have with a lot of the comments that have been made. I think that the mansard look, and I don't know if I'm using the right terminology but the big, the mansard hanging off the, over the roof on the south, to me it looks dated also and I look at what was given to us and what was the prior application and I find that significantly more appealing and I also, when I look at that I see without the mansard there and having.., wall, you could lower the sign so I think that, those two could go hand in hand. So I guess that's basically it. I just don't really like much about it at all. I agree that the staff's recommendation of the brick veneer should be elevated if this is the plan that we have. And I agree with the staff conditions, but based upon what I'm seeing here, I don't believe that I could support this plan because I just don't think it fits at all into what's envisioned for that area of the city. Peterson: Thank you. Alison. Blackowiak: I still don't know how I'm ultimately going to vote tonight. I have been struggling with this as well. And again architecturally maybe I just don't like it but I guess that's not my main problem. My problem is how does it fit in with the area. Mr. Johnson said that the original plan was dead. That this is not the original plan but although we're not supposed to consider TIF, they were given money based on an original plan and I, I don't know. As a taxpayer I just have a problem giving money to something that I really don't like. And I don't know. I don't want to get into that right now. The mansard roofI don't really think fits with the cinema. We've got an area right now. I think we need to think about how it ties in with the whole southern exposure. This would probably, and if it had a northern exposure. If it looked out onto the parking lot to the north. If it looked out onto the parking lot to the east maybe. But on the south I don't think it really fits. Matt made a good point about the size of the building and I think that's part of the problem. When you look at how tall the building is, adding a roof, or the mansard in front, is just going to make it look taller and I don't know if that's really what we want to have. It's, aesthetically I'm having a problem with the look of the building. I do agree with the staff's recommendations. I agree that if we do go with this plan, we need to have the brick go all the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 way to the top. I do not like the corrugated metal on the west side. I do believe we should have some sort of a water catch system, whether it's downspouts or whatever because I'm not convinced that we're not, pedestrians going down that area aren't going to get drenched at any given point from water sheeting off the building. I don't know. I don't think it fits well with the existing cinema and unfortunately the cinema got there first and maybe is tending to set the standard for that area. I don't know if that's good or bad but I think I would like to see this tie in more with the cinema than with the Dinner Theater. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well, I think something really needs to be done with the building as it is now. I mean it really is an eyesore. I'm not overwhelmed with this design. I'm not under whelmed with this design. I think I'm like Alison. I have really mixed feelings. I would love to see something happen in that area. This gives me kind of a bland feeling. I don't think, if we go with this design, to me the signage is okay on the roof. I don't really have a problem with it. I do agree with Vemelle that people do need to see the signs somehow. And for the rest of the recommendations that the planning staff has, I do think we should go with the planning stafl~ I think they have, they really do have good vision for our community and that we should continue to follow their direction. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Isn't it a nice testimonial? Boy, this is sort of... we get into architecture and stuff like that. Thank you for coming back and making the presentation better. I feel better about it. I felt you made some changes and that helps. These are tough issues you know we get into. Architect versus some standards and it gets messy. I can't really figure out some of this stufl2 I just can't so I mean I have to roll with the staff report. I'm not convinced that the alley is going to be, you know I wouldn't make the alleyway a big deal because the flip side of an alley is not a big deal. We're not going to have a beautiful alleyway, walkway there but staff report I think covers it. I really do. I'm comfortable with that. The only thing that I disagree with on the staff report is the signage. Just, we all have personal opinions on this whole thing so that's why we can't even talk about it. You know we've got to rely on the staff to help and stuff but the nice thing about architecture is difference. It's not the sameness. At one point in time we were going to have the whole city being a frontier style city. Isn't it nice that it's not. You know just, so to think that we should match the entertainment center, no. That's boring. That really is boring. I think the variety back there, I think this is fine. Is this my choice? Probably not but that's not my business. I think it will add some variety back there and that's okay. I'm more interested in how else we can, what else we can do back there. I think that's a bigger issue but at hand, you know staff report's fine. Other than the signage, I'm not comfortable with the applicant's signage, yet I don't want to bring it down below the roof. I think that will hide them. I think that's a problem. I think that destroys some of the visibility and signage is so major in these buildings. It is just a big deal so I'm sort of begging the question here and, not begging the question. I think the staff report is pretty close to being what we should follow. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Peterson: Well, you've obviously heard opinions. Across the board from staff2 From fellow commissioners and I guess I too have opinions. I'm struggling as to how to articulate them and I think that in many ways we're tasked by the City Council to off'er our opinions and recommendation about a lot of different things within the zoning and architectural consistency and compatibility and I think that's really what you're hearing tonight. And we're dealing with Herb's opinion tonight. You guys may not even agree with him. What we're trying to do is listen to your comments. Listen to stafl~s comments and sort through what's best for the city in that area. And as I gather that, I'll get to you in a second. I'll get to you in a second. Let me finish my comments. As I get to that, and my opinion is not dissimilar to some of my fore colleagues in that architectural compatibility, I just don't see it fitting in to what I envision for that area. Whether you call it the entertainment complex is dead. I don't know if anything is dead. Something will go there and we're going to be asked for our opinion on that also. And I clearly do think that Ladd's comment about Chanhassen was once going to be a frontier city, now aren't we glad it's not. Some people may be glad. Some people may not be. And I think that there's a balance and I think right now where I'm at is that the balance is, this is not the way that I see that area going. I would not support the development.., as presented without adhering to the stafl~s comments in totality. That means that I have a difficult time approving this because the staff is asking for some architectural change that I don't see. I can't approve something that is being asked for in a pretty generic sense. Those are my comments. I saw a hand in the audience. I'd be happy to entertain. Joseph Boyer: I really didn't come here, to this meeting for this but anyway I just wanted to off'er my comments. I've been in the building business in this area for 55 years and my family continues on and we have dealt with the Bloomberg Companies and Herb Bloomberg and all their designs and their architecture of their buildings has been excellent. If Herb Bloomberg told me he could make a corrugated building look like a crown jewel, I'd have to believe him. Because this man is that kind of a person and I think what they're giving you is another Bloomberg good design. Very functional, well designed building because that's been their nature. That's their character. That's the way they've always worked. That's my experience with Mr. Bloomberg. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you for those comments. Hearing all the comments from the fellow commissioners, may I have a motion and a second please. Conrad: I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for the Frontier Building, 98-7 SPR with a variance to allow signs on a building that does not have direct frontage on a public street as shown on the site plan dated March 23rd, 1989. And revised on April 27th, 1998, with the conditions as listed in the staff report dated May 6th with the following changes. That we strike the first line in condition number 6 and that we add a condition number 15 that the applicant work with the City Engineer on the appropriate roof drainage on the west side of the building. Peterson: Is there a second to that motion? Brooks: I'll second it. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Peterson: Any discussion? I don't know how I want to either ask for a friendly amendment or not. On condition number 12, that's a huge condition and I have a hard time voting, passing this onto Council and basically saying let them deal with it. Conrad: Absolutely Craig. Peterson: I think, that's my only concern. On that note I will ask for a. Conrad: Can I respond? The Council will have opinions. Why keep it here? We don't know what.., we can't guide these folks and the City Council and the Bloombergs but... Peterson: We've done our civic duty. With that may I ask for a vote. Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for the Frontier Building (98-7 SPR) with a variance to allow signs on a building that does not have direct frontage on a public street, as shown on the site plan dated march 23, 1989, and revised on April 27, 1998, with the following conditions: All existing and proposed rooftop equipment shall be screened from views, specifically from Highway 5. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. The applicant shall consider utilizing a font/sign style that is compatible with the building. The applicant and/or their assignee shall be responsible for any additional sewer and water hook up charges associated with remodeling the building based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Environmental Sewer Commission. 5. Fire Department recommends the following policies be followed (copies attached). Policy #01-1990 Policy #02-1990 Policy #04-1991 Policy #06-1991 Policy #07-1991 Policy #29-1992 Policy #34-1993 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Policy #36-1994 Policy #40-1995 Policy #44-1997 The west elevation shall be redesigned in a fashion that would minimize the appearance of the corrugated metal. The brick on the building shall be extended higher. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. The applicant shall add some architectural interest to the mansard roof along the south elevation. This could be done in the form of dormers. The applicant shall add flower boxes around the base of the columns along the south elevation. 10. The design should be revised to collect the roof runoff into downspouts and conveyed underneath the sidewalk. 11. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer for the appropriate roof drainage on the west side of the building. All voted in favor, except Burton and Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Burton: Basically I articulated earlier. Even with the stafl's recommendations, I still don't think it fits in to the area back there. I just have too many problems with this design in that location. Peterson: ... the simple fact is, I want to be sure we get Council's attention that it needs some more work. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN (LGU) DURING THE YEAR 1998 HEREBY PROVIDES NOTICE THAT IT HAS APPLIED FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AS PART OF THE 1998 TRAIL PROJECTS. THIS APPLICATION PROPOSED TO IMPACT 1.4 ACRES OF WETLANDS ALONG PORTIONS OF HWY 7~ GALPIN BOULEVARD~ POWERS BLVD~ GREAT PLAINS BLVD~ AND PIONEER TRAIL. THE PROPOSED IMPACT FROM THE TRAIL PROJECTS WILL BE MITIGATED BY THE CREATION OF NEW WETLANDS AND WETLAND CREDITS FROM THE CITY'S WETLAND BANK. Public Present: 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Name Address Eileen & Joseph Boyer 3630 Virginia Avenue Jim Sommers 8683 Chanhassen Hills Drive No. Chris Hol 8687 Chanhassen Hills Drive No. Phillip Elkin presented the staff report on this issue. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Conrad: Impact on a high grade wetland? Elkin: No. They're all, they all have been either impacted by agriculture or most have been impacted by road construction. Conrad: The Bluff Creek wetland Phillip is, what is that? That's the biggest one. Elkin: Right. Conrad: What kind of wetland is that? Elkin: That's still ag urban. If you look down there, they still farm as much as they can. It's just been classified a wetland because over the years the draintiles have broken and it no longer drains effectively to farm so it's a very low grade wetland. Dominated by reed canary grass. I haven't been up here for a while. I wanted to talk. Peterson: Let him go. Other questions? This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. ~myone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments. Ladd. Conrad: It's a good way to approach... Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I don't have any comments. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: No problems with this. Peterson: Matt. Burton: No problems. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: Looks good. Peterson: ... thorough. May I have a motion please. Blackowiak: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend adoption, recommend the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit 98-1 as shown on site plan drawings prepared by Howard R. Green Company, March 9, 1998 and subject to conditions 1, 2 and 3. Brooks: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #98-1 as shown on the site plan drawings prepared by Howard R. Green Company, March 9, 1998, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. 2. The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the ~ny Corps of Engineers, MN DNR and the Bluff Creek Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will required around the existing wetlands. All voted in favor and the motion carried. RSS/PERMA GREEN~ INC. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER/DRIVING RANGE TO BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREAT PLAINS 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 BLVD. AND TH 212 ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, RSS GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER. Peterson: Item number 3, RSS Perma Green has been deleted from tonight's public hearings. Aanenson: IfI can just comment on that. Because we do have to notice and we wouldn't make the time limit for the 20th, it will be on the June 3rd meeting. At that time, it does require a conditional use for altering the flood plain. It does require interim use permit for the golf. It does require a wetland alteration permit and also they're asking for some variances to the code so there's about 6 items that we'll be doing. It's pretty complex even though it's a small use. So because we hadn't noticed all those issues, and to meet the legal requirement, it's going to be another cycle so it will not be on in 2 weeks but rather a month. We have had two very productive meetings trying to resolve some of the issues and I think we're moving in the right direction. We do think it's a reasonable use of the properly but we want to make sure that we have a good enough understanding of the issues so we can appropriately mitigate the impacts of that. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: I had tentatively looked at putting on the comprehensive plan public hearing next, in two weeks. We do not have all the information back from the consultants doing the traffic study and the sewer comp plan final data. We are typing it into an easy to read format.., make sure you have enough time to read through that before we call the public hearing. Right now we have that scheduled for the first item in June. That meeting. I propose to take as many meetings as we need to get through that. It may take two. It may take three. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 15, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: As long as Phil's here, I'd like to let him tell you a little bit. We had a work session, he talked about the project he was going to do on Lake Susan and that's been underway and it's pretty exciting so maybe he can take a couple minutes and talk about it. Elkin: All right. You may have read in the paper, we've been, an ongoing project with Lake Susan this winter. We took out part of the problem with Lake Susan is there's very little game fish, very eutrophic or a lot of algae. We've been trying to get the algae under control so we did harvest 20,000 pounds of carp this winter along with 10,000 pounds of bullhead and nets were put out this spring and we have taken an additional 30,000 pounds of bullheads. They were all about the same size. Stunted growth. A quarter pound. We got those out. The alum treatment came. Before the alum treatment was done, we had a seci disc reading of 2 1/2 feet. A seci disc is the white, black and white disc you put in the water to judge the, you drop it in until it disappears and that determines, gives you a rough idea of how much algae clarity is in the water. A week after the alum treatment we could see all the way to the bottom of the lake, so 17 feet. So it did 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 increase dramatically. Unfortunately, it hasn't maintained that. We don't know how much it's declined but with all the sun and very little rain, it's subject or conducive to a large number of algae growth so it's still very clear. You can, it's very noticeable if you walk around the lake how far you can see out compared to years past but we have noticed some more vegetation taking hold where it hadn't been before so it's looking good so we're real excited about that and keep, if you get a chance go down there and look off the dock and you can, it's a noticeable difference. Peterson: They were water skiing on Sunday. Elkin: All right, great. Peterson: With wetsuits on. Aanenson: If you go out to the pier, you can see to the bottom off the pier so I'd encourage you to take a walk, take a look at it. Elkin: If you also have a chance, we did some plantings on the wetlands across from Applebee's and we did that on Arbor Day. I was out there today and four lilies are coming up so it's, we have about 7 different types of species out there that we planted so that's another thing to look for SO. Peterson: On the west side? Elkin: Both sides. All along, in the water. We planted from about the edge of the water to about 4 feet deep. And then we planted a strip of wild flowers along the whole perimeter of the wetland so. We need rain. Peterson: Not to wash it away though. Elkin: No, that's right. Peterson: Open discussion? Burton: Is there going to be any construction activity at all that you're aware of at the Villages? Is there anything, I just never see anything going on out there. Aanenson: Yeah. They do have the projects approved. They're in for building permits. Working through that. There's a couple issues that need to be ironed out as far as some utility stuff but. Blackowiak: You said they. Houlihan's or? Aanenson: Famous Dave's. Those two. Blackowiak: Oh Famous Dave's, okay. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 1998 Brooks: Any of the retail sites coming in? Aanenson: I haven't talked to Vemelle about the leasing. How that's going but I don't think that they're ready for that phase yet. Two restaurants are coming in... Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21