Loading...
5 Sign Variance Giant PandaCffYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax:. 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter BmJlevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Wod= 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:. 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site v##:.ci.chanha~.mn.us TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: April 28, 2003 SUB J: Sign Variance for Installation of Wall Signs on Three Sides of the building at Hi-Way 5 Centre EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item was tabled from the April 14, 2003 due to the issue regarding the screening of the rooftop equipment. Staff has attempted to provide some alternatives in relation to the screening of the rooftop equipment. As a general role, we encourage rooftop equipment to be located as near the center of the roof as possible. This permits even small parapet walls to screen large equipment by lengthening the site distance angle. After the fact screening is alway8 difficult if not unfeasible to achieve. Staff has developed three dLff~t alternatives to potentially address the screening issue including painting the rooftop equipment, extending the parapet wall, or installing an equipment enclosure structure. Staff met with Jill Ramsey on April 22, 2003, to review the alternatives. While her preference is not to screen the equipment since this has been an existing condition for the last six years, she did say that painting the equipment the color of the parapet wall would be an acceptable corn!re)raise. She was opposed to the extension of the parapet wall and 8damantly opposed to ins~on of a mechanical equipment enclosure. She stated that they already have had problems with leaks in the roof and this alternative would only acerbate it. She was also concerned that Mr. Pan would suffer financially from these screening requirements, which should have been borne by the original owner of the business. Painted: (Staff recommends that ff this option is chosen, the color be the same as the parapet wall.) This option is the least costly of the three screening options. Blends the equipment with the building, Tan. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, qLality schools, a charming dovmtown, thriving busing, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A grot place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt April 28, 2003 Page 2 Con: Paint peels over time. Equipment can still be seen directly. Makes the equipment stand out even more, Blue. Extend Parapet Wall: Pro: Completely screens view of equipment from west, only. Con: Must be engineered if parapet is higher than four feet high. Must be lengthy to provide screening to northwest and southwest. Cost is believed to be only slightly lower than enclosure option. Would not match the rest of the building's architectural detail, i.e., would look out of place, since this type of detail is not present on other areas of the building. Mechanical Enclosure: Pro: Completely screens equipment. Con: Most expensive option, estimated in excess of $2,500. Would require cutting into roof structure. Retrofitting more difficult than instaUation with initial consuu~on. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Several sections of the code address screening of mechanical equipment: Sec. 20-116 (c). Architectural standards. (c) All rooRop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash storage areas shall be enclosed with materials compatible with the principal smacmre. Low profile, serf- contained mechanical units which blend in with the building architecture may be exempt from the screening requirement. Sec. 20-916. Rooftop screening. All roof-mounted equipment on buildings located within thc business, office, and industrial districts shall provide for screening which is consistent with the exterior of the principle struck. Sec. 20-1067. Height and roof design. Building heights shall be limited to three (3) stories or forty (40) feet in the Highway 5 Corridor District. Otherwise building heights shall be consistent with the standards of the underlying zoning district. Measurement of the highest point shall exclude antennas for television and radio Todd Gerhardt April 28, 2003 Page 3 reception, but shall include architectural details (e.g., parapet walls), transmission antennas, satellite dishes and transmission equipment, microwave-transmission equipment, and other nonstructural building elements. Pitched roofs should have a minimum roof pitch of one (1) rise to four (4) feet of run. Flat roofs should be defined with an ornamental parapet or cornice. Average parapet height shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the height of the supporting wall and maximum parapet height at any point shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the support wall. Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and other utility hardware, whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it, shah be screened from the public view and with materials identical to or-strongly similar tO building materials or by heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter or they shall be located so as not to be visible from any public way. Use of parapet walls or pitched roof elements to screen equipment is encouraged. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen. Each building shall contain one (1) or more pitched elements (pitched roof, awnings, entries, etc.). Sec. 20-1454 (9). ArehitecUmfl design standards. (9) Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and other utility hardware, whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it, shall be screened from the public view and with materials identical to or strongly similar to building materials or by heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter or they shall be located so as not to be visible from any public way. Use of parapet walls or pitched roof elements to screen equipment is encouraged. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment 8Cl'~n. RECOMMF. NDATION City Council action includes approval of one motion: 'Whe Chanlmssen City Council approves a sign variance for Hi-way S Centre to permit wall signage on three sides of the building (north, west and south). The Planning Commission recommended that a condition of approval be that the use of window signs be prohibited for the south unit. In addition, a Council member has recommended that a condition of approval be that the roof top equipment be screened. ATFA~NTS 1. E-mail from Jill Ramsey dated April 23, 2003. Todd G~rhardt April 28, 2003 Page 4 2. Memorandum from Bob Generous to Todd Gerhardt dated 4/14~03 3. Planning Commission ~Fmutes of March 18, 2003 4. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: jill ramsey [ramseymj~}msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, Apdl 23, 2003 1:22 PM To: BGenerous ~} CI.Chanhassen.MN.US Subject: Meeting of April 22. 2003 Bob, This letter Is In regards to our meeting yesterday concerning the screening of the rooftop unit. As we discussed, my first choice would be to do nothing with the unit. The unit was Installed In 1998 and at no time since then has the City contacted me with concerns about It's apperance. However, knowing that the City Is adament about the screening condition being attached to the approval of Mr. Pan's Giant Panda sign, the most viable option you presented to me would be to paint the unit for the following reasons: 1. We have had previous problems with leakage from the roof Into the retail spaces. As you explained to me, screening the unit would require cutting Into the roof. This could create further Issues with leakage. We have been dealing with the roof Installer and roof lining manufacturer on the existing problems and are not willing to potentially create further problems that could nullify the warrenty on the roof. 2. Screening the unit will be an undue financial burden to Mr. Pan. As we discussed, the unit was Installed five years ago by the previous Giant Panda owner. It would be unfair to Impose costs of several thousand dollars to Mr. Pan. 3. After viewing the potential solutions you presented to me, painting the unit the color of the existing building parapet walls would be the most visually appealing choice. Surrounding the unit with walls draws more attention than leaving the unit as It presently exists. Thank you for the time and attention you have given this matter. I would like to have copies of the slides you presented to me for my files. Sincerely, .1111 Eamsey ! appreciate the time 4/23/2O03 C 0F CHA HASE 7700 Market Boulevard PO BOx147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspe~tlon= Phone: 952227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Crater 2310 Couitrer Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:. 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Ruources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952227.1110 Web Site ;,,,,,w,,.ci.chanhassen.m n.us TO: FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: April 14, 2003 SUB J: Sign Variance for Installation of Wall Signs on Three Sides of the Building at Hi-Way 5 Centre EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance m keep the wall signage on the south elevation of the building, "Giant Panda" and a logo depicting a panda bear, which was permitted in error. While the signage complies with the sign code, it did not comply with the conditions of site plan approval, which moved signage from the south to west building elevation. One of the conditions of approval of the Highway 5 Centre site plan was that wall signs shall be located on no more than 2 street frontages. The sign ordinance requires that wall signage be installed only on elevations with street frontage. In this case, the building abuts West 79t~ Street and TH 5. Therefore, wall signage would be permitted on the north and south elevations. Since the tenant spaces face the west, the owner requested to give up signage along the southern elevation in remm for gaining signage along the west elevation. While staff had recommended denial of the sign variance, three viable alternatives were presented for consideration. The Planning Commission recommended approval of alternative 3 which approved the sign variance with the condition that window signage be prohibited in the Southern unit. The Planning Commission felt that removal of the signage would be a hardship. (The tenant has already removed the window signage.) RECOMMENDATION City Council action includes approval of one motion: '*rhe Chanhassen City Council approves a sign variance for Highway 5 Centre to permit wall signage on three sides of the building on the basis that the permit was issued on January 28, 2003, and the sign was installed prior to staff notifying the applicant, and subject to the following condition: The applicant must eliminate the use of window signs for the south uniL" The City of Chanhmen · A growing community,#ith clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A grot place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt April 14, 2003 Page 2 PLANNING COMMI~ION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 18, 2003, to review the req~ sign variance: CONSIDER TUE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE LOCATED AT 463 WEST 79xa STREET~ GIANT PANDA~ MIKE RAMSEY. Bob Generous presenteA the staff report on this issue. Public Present: Nnme Address Paul Punt Peng Pan Jill Ramsey 8014 Dakota Avenue 760 West Village Road, #106 6362 Oxbow Bend Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commlnnion re~gnmends approval of the sign variance for Highway 5 Centre to permit wall ~nage on three sides of the building on the basis that the permit was issued on January 28, 2003, and the sign was installed prior to staff notifying the applicant, and subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant must eliminate the use of window signs for the south windows. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carl'led with a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Sacchet opposed the motion because he thought the no window signage should apply to the whole building. Chairwoman Blackowiak stated the City Council summary as follows: Staff recommended denial of this issue. Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote recommended approval to option number 3 which excludes any window signs on the Giant Panda on the south tenant locatiom Reasoning was that the signage was done in good faith. That the permit was issued and the error was not discovered until after the sign was installed, so based on that we feel that it was not the apglicant's fault. It also looks cleaner without the window lettering, and they are neighbors to too many people, or specifically Villages PUD fight across the street which has many 3 signed buildings, but not here. If it were in a different location I would probably say you know strictly follow the rules but in this case, because they have so many neighbors directly to the south that have 3 and 4 signs, or 3 sided signs or 4 sided signs, that it is justified. And also Uli's connmnts regarding the timing issues were very i .m!x~'tant in our decisiom Commissioner. Slagle stated the assmnption was made that the applicant was not aware of the prior denial of this southern elevation. Commissioner Sacchet's point was he thought no window signage should apply to the whole building because the owner did know of prior denials for a sign on the south elevatiom Commissioner Claybaugh Mghlighted the point he made earlier that he believe it's a unique ~ insofar as that it really truly does not have any street frontage, and not in order to justify this particular signage but possibly something to address with respect to the signage stature and ordinances in the furore. April 14, 2003 Page 3 1. Planning Commission Minutes of March 18, 2003 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 CoNSmER ~ REO~ FOR A VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE LOCATED AT 463 WEST 79TM STRE_ET~ GIANT PANDA~ MIKE ~. Public Present: Nnme Address Paul Punt 8014 Dakota Avenue Peng Pan 760 West Village Road, #106 Jill Ramsey 6362 Oxbow Bend Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Craig, I'll start down at your end. Questions for staff. Claybaugh: Sure. What type amortization schedule are you working on Bob? Generous: Well we would have to look at what's a ~le period. The sign costs about $1,100 to have it installed. We'd look at what advertising costs would be to, for a reasonable business expeme. I don't know if it's $50 a month. $100 a month and then after that time period they would have to remove it. Clayhaugh: Okay. Just a couple of points I wanted to clarify for myseff. Tl~ application that was previously denied, you just commented ff I understood you correctly, that that was a previous owner. It wasn't the current owner. Claybaugh: I thought that was important. the signage was already installed. Generous: Correct. Claybaugh: So it was after the fact. proceeding... Generous: Right, they followed, they went under th~ permit that was issued. Clayhaugh: That's all the quesfiom I have right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, q~ons? Lillehaug: Yes. Do you know how long the tenant has occupied this building? G-en~us: I'm not sure. Lillehaug: Not sure. Any idea? A couple years. Okay, I'll ask. Blackowialc We'll ask yeah. We'll ask the tenant. And that when the staff went out and recognized the error, that It wasn't a question of them willful non-compliance of ~ 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Did the applicant originally request to install a sign on the south elevation when they initially occupied this building? Generous: Yes, the original owner did. Lillehaug: The original owner but. Generous: The amendment pro, ss before this. So did they install both the westerly sign and the southerly sign at the same time? Lillehaug: Okay. Generous: No. Lillehaug: Generous: Lillehaug: Generous: Lillehaug: Generous: So they did install the westerly sign7 Correct. Along with on the monet, the pylon sign out on the south, that was installed? Correct. But originally they didn't install this Caiam Panda sign on the south elevation7 Correct. Lillehaug: Was there anything that changed that the tenant thought? I mean he initially didn't install that sign so is there anything that changed in your mind that would trigger something that the tenant could now install this sign on the south? Are you following me there? Generous: Yes, but I'm not sure. He, when he got into that he was aware that he couldn't have it and he did it as a business process. He wanted to get more visibility so he came to the City for the application. Lillehaug: Okay. I'll direct the questions to the tenant then, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yes I have a few questions. First of all the ~ line. ~ was the sign installed? Was it before February 11~? Generous: I believe so. Sacchet: Was it before February 6~ This is relevant. I'm sorry, it might sound nit picky but~ Generous: It's February 6~. Sacchet: It was before February Generous: No, it was on February 6~. Sacchet: Alright, let's be a little more specific then because according to the letter that you send to Mr. Pan on February 11~, you did a site visit on February 6a' to tell him that the permit was given in error. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: And at that point was the sign up or not? Generous: It was up. Sacchet: It was up, okay. Because I think that's significant for at least my own reasoning. Now to clarify also in this letter from February 11~. You pointed out an option that if the property owner would be willing to remove the signage on the north end, then the south end sign could be considered legitimate. I assume the property owner does not want to give up the sign on the nor& Generous: That's correct Sacchet: Okay. Just to be real clear. What's the situation with the examples that the sign applicant pointed out in the city, buildings that have signs on 3 or more sides like Market Square, Byerly's, AmericInn, the Bell Mortgage. What's the context? Generous: Those are genenflly within planned unit development and the design stan~ were created as part of it. Within the Bell Mortgage sign they do have street frontages on 2 sides and the design standards permit signage on your primary paridng side also, which may not be the street frontage. Sacchet: So Bell Mortgage, AmericInn, Byerly's and Maxket Square, they were all PUD's? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Alright. That's my questions, thank you. Claybaugh: Thank you. Rich, any questions? Slagle: Just one. Bob did you really tell them that the penalties were 90 days in jail and a million dollars? Generous: A thousand dollars? Slagle: A thousand dollars fine. Generous: Well they asked me what's the penalty and I said it was a misdemeanor. Slagle: Alright, I just wanted to asL And then can I just ask how you found out about it? Generous: I received a phone call and someone said there's a sign going up and at that time I said oh no, I'd better check the site plan because this is after our planner left and we stax'axl doing these. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay. Blackowiak: I don't have any questions of staff right now, so at this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation7 If so, come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Jill Ramsey: I'm Jill Ramsey, 6362 Oxbow Bend, Chan.hassem My husband and I own the building in question and he isn't here obviously, so I'm going to do the best I can with what infc~mafion I have. Most of the things I wanted to touch on here are kind of some clarifications. And I'm just going to go by 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 the letter that went out on the 11 ~ which we received a copy of, so just to kind of let you know the order I'm going in. The first thing as far as Mr. PaWs applying for a permiL He has owned the business, Cdant Panda, I believe about 4 or 5 months now. The original owner applied in '99 to have a sign put on the south side and that was denied. Then came Mr. Pan and applied for this and was approved. But I'll touch on that in a second. Going down the list, it talked about asking the property owner to remove the sign on the north elevation. There might be some misconception here. My husband and I own the building. We no longer own Gold Medal Sports. We have not owned it since a year ago February. That sign, although the Mike Ramsey is still on it, that Gold Medal Sports now belongs to the new owner of Gold Medal Sports. So it really isn't our option to just go and take down and move that sign. So I wanted to clarify that because it sounded like there might be confusion that the building owners actually owned the business at that end. And also as far as relocating signs, a couple of things. One, it would be a real financial hardship for Mr. Pan to have to remove that sign. He applied in good faith to get a permit. Was given a permit. Then, and the sign was up, and then he was told to take it down so the cost he himself would be incurring would be the cost of the sign, cost of putting it up, cost of taking it down. As business owners, or owning the building, then we also have damage on that side of the building, which would need to be addressed because of removing the sign so that's an undue hardship I believe for us to have to deal with that Forgive me if I just gather my thoughts for a second. We also wanted to touch on the definition of street frontage. I think it's criteria B. That you can have signage on two street frontages, and I'm probably not clear on this but ff you've seen on the building, and I don't know how do I do this. There it is right there. The north end and south ends of the building are street frontage. One is West 79m Street, one is Highway 5. The main, the front of the building, the actual entrances aren't street frontage. It's a parking lot connected to the parking lot of the Chanhas~n motel and the other issue on street frontage, which the gentleman brought up was, there are numerous signs on buildings in Chanhassen. I just did a little tour this afternoon. Culver's has si~s on 3 sides. That's a single building, one occupant. We do have 5 occupants in that building by the way. The American Inn has 3. Houlihan's has 3 on a single building. The building that holds Bruegger's Bagels and Spalon has signage on 3 sides. I know you touched on the Bell Mortgage. There are actually if you count the small Starbuck sign on the south side, there is signage on 4 sides on that building. So I guess I don't want Mr. Pan to feel like he's setting precedence because he isn't setting precedence by having that third sign. And I guess the main point of it is, he in good faith as a new business owner went through the right channels. He applied for a permit. Was granted the permit on the basis of wanting to incwalse his business. And once the sign was up, then was told there would be fines. He could have jail time if it wasn't taken down, which I thought was a little harsh. But I don't think he should you know be penalized by now having to take the sign down, nor do I want to be penalized by having to repair damage to the building to do so. Blackowiak: Thank you. Can you just stand up hem for a second. Commissioners, any questio~ of the applicant? Rich. Slagle: I've got a quick question. Would you have a balll~rk figure as to the cost of the sign and the cost of the installation? I'll assume the removal will be about the same as installation. Iill Ramsey: There is a gentleman here with Mr. Pan tonight who did put the sign up and I'd rather let him answer that because he would know. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Okay. If you would just state your name and address for the record please. Paul Punt: My name is Paul Punt. I'm with Attractive Signs, 7420 West Lake Street in St. Louis Park. Jill pretty well covered it I think. I think one thing I'd like to add is that Bob had three options that the commission could consider, and I think Olle of the, the one that would be the most appealing to us would 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 probably be number 3 which would be to allow the sign to be there and that Mr. Pan no longer use the window signage that he has been using in the past. In fact he has already removed the window signage. Scrapped it all off. It's already gone and that would be the most beneficial to everybody in Chart I think. That'd be the fairest. As far as cost, he's, the cost to put that sign up there was $1,100. Slagle: And the cost of the sign itself? Paul Punt: That building a raceway. The letters he took from a previous location. And we found him a raceway and mounted them on the building. Now that cost represents somewhat of a discount because we understand that he's a new businessman trying to make ends meet so we gave him a little break on that. Slagle: So ballpark, a couple thousand dollars. Paul Punt: Yeah. Slagle: Okay. If I can ask, does he have any other locations? Paul Punt: No. Slagle: That this could be used if it needed to come down. Paul Punt: No he does not. Slagle: Okay. Fair enougl~ That's all I have. Blackowiak: Thank you. Why don't you stay up. We may have more questions for you. Uli? Sacchet: No. Lillehaug: My questions would he to Mrs. Ramsey actually. And I'm trying to get this straight in my mind. As far as an owner and tenant relations go, I assut~ that you were aware that a sign couldn't go up on the south elevation of the building, would that be a fair question? Blackowialc Or maybe your husband. Jill Ramsey: I would rather not speak for him. To know that, I don't know in '99 when Mr. Lee applied for that permit if Mike was involved with tba~ Or not so. Lillebaug: Maybe, can I direct this to staff?. Is it typical that a tenant or an owner would apply for a permit, or would be either or? Generous: Generally it's the sign company that actually makes the application. Lillehaug: Alright. Blackowiak: This may clarify a little bit but Bob, let's just, tell me if I'm fight. I believe I remember seeing this when the original owner came in, Milm Ramsey, and chose specifically those 2 locations, north and west as opposed to the south. That was a conscious ehoiee? Jill Ramsey: Yeah. Can I touch on the. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowialc Okay, let's see if staff has the same menxty that I do, but because I mnemI~r the discussion about specific because there were only 2 and those 2 were chosen. Al-Jaff: That's correct The original required signs along street frontages only, and Roman Roos was the applicant at the time taking this through the process and the decision was, your frontage was, the largest frontage and your doors were going to face the parking lot. We swapped the ~ along Highway 5 for the frontage... Blackowiak: On the parking lot just because it made more sense to have it over a tenant's door? Al4aff: That's correct. Blackowiak: I'm sony to interrupt her but I've been here a while so I kind of remember this. Jill Ramsey: The other thinking with that, of the request of having it on that north side at the time was, when we built the building we did own Gold Medal Sports. That end unit had not yet been leased so for us logically as business owners of Gold Medal Sports it was to have the signage down, wrapped around the unit that we occupied. Blackowiak: Okay. LiHehaug: Could I also ask Mr. Pan a question? Is this Mr. Pan in the audience? Is that fair? Slagle: You can do whatever you want. Lillehaug: Good evening Mr. Pan. And my question would be what I discussed with staff earlier, when the signs were originally put up, there was one put up on the west elevation of the building but at that time the sign wasn't on the south elevation of the building. Could you maybe explain why they both weren't put up at the same time? Is that a fair question? Jill Rarmey: The restaurant has changed hank. The business is under his ownership. The name is the same. So when Giant Panda first went in it was just there. Lillehaug: Thank you. I got it now. Blackowialc Okay. Is that it? Lillehaug: I'm done. Blackowiak: Okay. That was easy wasn't it? I think we got the question answered, thank you. Craig, do you have any questions of? Claybaugh: I don't have any questions to ask, no. Blackowialc No, and I don't have any questions of the appncam e~the~. At th~ point the item is open for a public hearing. If anybody would like to comment on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public heating. Commissioners, comments. Craig, we'll start with you. Claybaugh: Thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: I try to mix it up a little bit. Claybaugh: In reviewing the options given by staff, I feel that given the circumstances I could support item number 3. I would just like to add that I think that particular building confi~mmition in relation to how it's placed to West 79~ and Highway 5 creates a little bit of a tmique problem with respect to advertising that building. At 50 miles an hour to dovetail what Scott had said in the previous application, at 50 miles an hour I think those monument letters may be all of 10 inches. So I can certainly see where Mr. Pan would want to get greater exposure and at least as it's been explained tonight, it was done in good faith. So as such I think I feel I can support item number 3. Blackowiak: Okay, option number 3 which would be no window si~tms in exchange for the southern exposure. Claybaugh: That's correct, yes. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any comments? Lillehaug: This one's tough. A little while ago I voted no on it, and this is kind of extenuating circumstance. The sign is already up. I like how the building looks. It looks cleaner without all the window signage so I do agree with that. I really do like that. So in regard to that I guess I also would support 3 and I would, in my comment would be as, to maybe remove the sign on the pylon or monument that on that south side also. I'm trying to get rid of some of these signs. Them are signs galore out there, and it's pretty redundant. I don't think that sign needs to be on the pylon if it's on that south elevation of the building. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uti, comments. Sacchet: Yeah I have a few comments. First of all I don't think it would be fair to remove the pylon sign because it's there and it's a standard allowable thing. I'm ecstatic for not having these windows painted up, to be honest with you. That's disturbed me ever since that place was there. Consi~ that this situation affect the whole building, I would ask that it applies to the whole building, not just to the south end of the building. Because there has to be a give and take. I'm absolutely adamantly opposed to the fact that we see 3 signs for the same business at the same time. With any other application like that I would say there's absolutely no way that a variance is given for this. I mean considering that a permit was given and it was not discovered that it was an error until the sign was up, I feel that really we c.~nnot penalize the tenant or the other of the building. The mistake is with staff and Bob, you've been too generous. Hate to rub that one again, but that happens. Everybody makes mistakes and we have to allow for that. But I don't think we can expect the tenant or the owner to take the burden of staff having made a mistake. Plus there are obviously a good number of precedents in the city buildings that have si~s on multiple sides. Now there is a technical difference that's very significant. That those buildings are in PUD, in planned unit developments, which is a totally different set of rules. Tbere is a give and take in terms of imposing more stringent design standards in exchange for some liberties like for instance maybe a little more signage, which still is not giving them free hand. It's still being regulated. So my position is very clear here. I think we should allow this in exchange of no window signage on the whole building, and also making it clear that tlz~'s absolutely no other justification for this variance. And that's my comments. Slagle: In my wildest dreams I couldn't top that one. I think the only thing I would odd to Commi.gsioner Sacchet's comments is, I don't think I could go with the overall window ban if you will personally but otherwise I support the variance. Staff made an honest mistake and the gentleman needs Imsinegs so. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowialc Okay. Rich, would you go with the, you said not all over? Slagle: Number 3. Number 3. Blackowialc Number 3? So that would be the window ban on that only? Slagle: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. You know what, we're into our cornnmnt phase so, you did a nice job. Jill Ramsey: I just wanted to. Blackowialc You know what, we'll just go ahead. Jill Ramsey: ...unfair to the other owners to penalize them to take down their window signage. Blackowialc RighL You know what, this is going to go to City Cotmcil as well so there's always another venue. My comments are not unlike the other commissioners, but I'm ~ because one sign we're saying no, and the second sign we're saying yes. I agree it was done in good faith. I agree that the window lettering was an eyesore, and I would think that, or I would hope that the variance motion would include number 3 and then forbid any window lettering on that trail Totally. Regardless of who owns it. Whether it's this owner or another owner, and if another owner decides that window lettering is beaer for them, then they take down the sign on the south side. I mean I think it's an either or. I don't think you get both. So I would just make sure that that was clear that if somebody wanted the window lettering that badly on the south unit that they'd have to give up the Highway 5 exposure. I'd like a motion please. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves the sign variance for Highway 5 Center to permit wall signage on 3 sides of the building based upon the findings preseni~xt in the staff repcn% and I want to refer to number 3. And then quote that Giant Panda delete and not use any window siL~n.~ in the future~ And specifically for that tenant only. That'd be iL Blackowialc Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Clayhaugh: Second. Blackowiak: Moved and secondecL All those in favor say aye? Sacchet: Could I make a friendly? Blackowiak: Comments, sure. Go ahead. Sacchet: I'd like to ~dd that this signage, we reconm~nd approval on the basis that the permit for this signage was issued on January 28~ and the sign was actually installed prior to when staff discovezed and informed the applicant that this was in error. I think that's i .mportant because I don't see any other reason why we would... Blackowialc Right, and that was some of the notes I was taking for our summary to City Council Sacchet: Okay. Planning Commi~ion Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: I'll make sure that that's in there too. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Lillehaug: I accept that. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commlnsion recommends approval of the sign variance for Highway 5 Centre to permit wall signage on three sides of the building on the basis that the permit was issued on January 28, 2003, and the sign was installed prior to staff notifying the applicant, and subject to the foIlowing condition: 1. The applicant must eliminate the use of window signs for the south windows. All voted in favor, except Saeehet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: Okay motion carries 4-1. Sacchet: And I oppose because I really do think it should apply to the whole building. Blackowiak: The window lettering. Sacchet: And no window lettering. Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. City Council summary. Staff recorded denial of this issue. Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote recommended approval to option numbex 3 which excludes any window signs on the Giant Panda on the south tenant location. Reasoning was that the signage was done in good faith. That tim permit was issued and the error was not discovered until ag. er the sign was installed, so based on that we feel that it was not the applicant's fault. It also looks cleaner without the window lettering, and they are neighbors to too many people, or specifically Villages PUD fight across the street which has many 3 signed buildings, but not here. ff it were in a different location I would probably say you know strictly follow the rules but in this case, because they have so many neighbors directly to the south that have 3 and 4 signs, or 3 sided siotm~ or 4 sided signs, that it is justifie~L And also Uli's com. m~nts regarding the timing issues were very important in our decisiom Commi~,sioners, any additional input to City Council? Slagle: Just one. Assumption being made that the applicant was not aware of the prior denial of thi.~ southern elevation. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I wean we are making that assumption. Blackowialc Right, we are making that assumption. That' s a good point. Uli, any other points to add? Sacchet: My point why I think it should apply to the whole building is because the owner did know of prior denial of applications. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, any other information? Lillehaug: No. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Craig, any other information? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd like to just highlight the point I made earlier that I believe it's a tmique property insofar as that it really truly does not have any street frontage. And not in order to justify this particular signage but possibly something to address with respect to our signage statute and ordinances in the future. Blackowialc Okay. Thank you. This item goes to City Council on the 14~ of April, and Bob you're waving your hand over there. What can I do for you? Generous: Chair, just one point of clarifi~on. You said tenant and CAant Panda but you really mean for this unit. The next person could have... Blackowialc For the specific south unit. I mean the southern most tenant. Claybaugh: End cap. Blackowiak: Yeah, southern end cap, whatever we want to call it. And you know we could actually even say, I don't even have the specific address. Are they 463 West 79~7 Caiam Panda, okay. So we could specify that this applies to the ~ at 463 West 79~, further defined as the southern most unit. Okay? Clear enough. Alright, so that's our, those are our notes to council. Thank you for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE ~~ FRQM ~ENTIAL LARGE LQT TQ RESIDENTIAL LOW DF_~ITY~ REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DI~I'RICT~ A-2, TO SINGLE FAMILY ~ENTIAL, RSF, AND SUBDIYIb'ION OF LQT 1, BLOCK 1, FIlI.I-~IIDE OAI~ INTO 6 LQT~ WITH A VARIANCE FOR ~ U~E QF A PRIVATE ~TREET LQCATED AT 8800 PQ~ BOUI.lgVARD, AIHI.I) R0~q~AVI~ PQWERS cmcL Public Present: Name Address Arild Rossavik Mark Kelly George & Jackie Bizek Greg Kahler Steve & Kristi Buan Jayme Lee 8800 Powers Boulevard 351 Second Street, Excelsior 8750 Powers Boulevard 8742 Flamingo Drive 8736 Flamingo Drive 8740 Flamingo Drive 1380 Oakside Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners. Uli, would you like to start? Sac. chex: Yeah I have, I'd just, a lot of few questions. I've still got 16 left because I want to do this real quick. First of all the time line. When was this re-guided from low density to estate? Do you have a time for that? CiTY OF STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 0~/1 CCDATE: 04/14/03 CASE #: 2003-5 SIGN (VAR) BT.. RG LOCATION: APPLICANT: A Sign Variance Request For The Installation Of Wall Signs On Three Sides Of The Building At Highway 5 Centre 463 West 79m Street Giant Panda Attracta Sign Co. 7420 West Lake Street St Louis Park, MN 55426 (952) 933-7730 563 West 79m Street ~, MN 55317 ACREAGE: N/A BH, Highway Business N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N-' S: E: W: BI-I, Highway Business District, commelcial building PUD, Villages on Pond and Highway 5 BH, Highway Business District, Holiday BI-I, Highway Business District, Chanhas~ lnn WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: This site contains a small shopping center. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: LEVEL OF DISCRETION The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. Thc City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking .a deviation from established Giant Panda Sign Variance March 18, 2003 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-1253 states the city council, upon the recommendation of the planning commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article. Section 20-1303 (3) states that wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within the building only. Site Plan # 96-4, Highway 5 Centre: Permitted wall signage on two building elevations. Signs were located on the west and north elevation. BACKGROUND On January 28, 2003, a sign permit was issued in error for wall signage on the south elevation of the building. On January 25, 1999, the City Council denied an amendment to SPR g)64 for the installation of a 40 sq. ft. wall sign and 4.7 sq. ft. logo at Hi-Way 5 Centre on the south side of the building. On June 10, 1996, the City Council approved Site Plan Review g96-4 for the Highway 5 Centre. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a variance to keep the wall signage on the south elevation of the building, "Giant Panda" and a logo depicting a panda bear, which was permitted in error. The applicant's name is already installed on the western elevation and on the pylon abutting TH 5. Giant Panda is located in the Highway 5 Centre. The site plan for this building was approved in 1996. The ordinance requires that when buildings are presented for site plan review, the proposed signage shall also be presented for review and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The purpose of this review is to make certain the signage complies with ordinance and to grant "variances" if necessary. One of the conditions of approval of the Highway 5 Centre site plan was that wall signs shall be located on no more than 2 street frontages. The sign ordinance requires that wall signage be installed only on elevations with street frontage. In this case, the building abuts West 79t~ Street and TH 5. Therefore, wall signage would be permitted on the north and south elevations. Since the tenant spaces face the west, the owner requested to give up signage along the southern elevation in return for gaining signage along the west elevation. Staff thought it wise to permit signage on the west and one other elevation. The northern elevation was selected by the owner. The sign plan that was Giant Panda Sign Variance March 18, 2003 Page 3 approved was a compromise between the city and the building owner to permit signage on elevations which would be most beneficial to the site even though the ordinance does not permit signage without street frontage. Signage on the southern and eastern elevations is prohibited. Thc shopping center has an existing pylon sign along TH 5 for visibility with all tenants' names displayed. Staff believes Highway 5 Ccntre's signage criteria are appropriate and purposeful. It is fair to all five (5) tenants by allowing them to install distinct signage, yet it specifies the location and the size of the letters. It limits the size of the individual dimensional letters to 2 feet in height (Giant Panda's letters are 1.5 feet in height) and the location (two elevations) of the wall signs. The sign ordinance states that multi-tenant buildings shall have uniform signage. The signage criteria for this building ensure the signage will be proportionate to other signage and the building. The request is based upon the notion that a sign on TH 5 will create greater visibility and improve business. The sign on the pylon already provides visibility. A considerable amount of time and effort was put into the original conditions of approval to ensure that the signage would be complementary to the site and yet provide visibility for the future tenants. The tenant currently uses window signage on the south elevation to increase their visibility. Staff fails to find a reason to justify granting this variance. Giant Panda has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance to permit the installation of a second wall sign. A hardship is present if it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship. The applicant has a reasonable oppommity to install signage on the western elevation of the building. Actually, the words "Giant Panda" are already installed. Staff fails to find a hardship in installing only one sign. Giant Panda has two signs, one on the western elevation and the other on the pylon abutting TH 5. Based on this information, staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship and cannot recommend approval of the variance. However, there are three other alternatives for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider: , Since the proposed sign does comply with the sign ordinance requirements, but not the site plan conditions, and it is actually the signage on the western elevation of the building that requires a variance, it may be a factor for granting a variance. Signage on the western elevation would need to be shown to be necessary due to the conditions of the site, i.e., the entrances for the interior units are located to the parking lot and do not have street frontage, and therefore, would not be permitted signage othemrise. e The variance could be denied and the City Council could grant an extended time period for the removal of the sign. This would allow the tenant to amortize the cost of the sign as a business expense. Giant Panda Sign Variance March 18, 2003 Page 4 . ~ant Panda extensively uses window signs. The sign ordinance permits up to 50 percent window coverage. If the Planning Commission and City Council were to grant a variance for the wall signage, elimination of the use of window signs for the south windows ia recommended. The city council, upon the recommendation of the planning commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article. Finding: Permitting the reallocation of the wall signage from the southern to western elevation was reasonable and consistent with the findings required for granting the signage variances. The granting of a sign variance to permit signage on three sides of the building is not warrante~ The tenant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their business without a sign on the southern elevation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: 'Whe Planning Commission records denial of the sign variance for Highway 5 Centre to permit wall signage on three sides of the building based upon the findings presented ill the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has visibility on TH 5 with the existing pylon sign." ATrACItMFNTS 1. Development Review Application and Letter 2. Section 20-1303, Sign Ordinance, BH District 3. Reduced Copy of Site Plan 4. Sign Permit Application 5. Letter from Robert Generous to Peng Pan dated 2/11/03 6. Public He. rig Notice and Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ,~.-~-v-.~~ ~.~[~,,~'~ ADDRESS: ?~-~1.~ L~'~ ~_~1,- ) TELEPHONE (Day time) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Intedm Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPFIJVA~~AP~etes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twen~lx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8½" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. P~OJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING YES ~ NO REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~//o,.r-; b..¥'~oo_ -}--G (3.-IJm~j .<:;~Gr'~~._. ~,/3 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Plannin~ Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the dascdbed action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions am approved by the applicant. Signatu~ of Applicant Signature of Fee Owny Application Received on Date Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. · MINNEAPOUB, MN. BB42EI · FAX (915~) 9,'~3-7BEI3 City of Chanhas~ 7700 market Blvd. Chanhassen MN 55317 We are requesting this vatian~ on behalf of Mr. Peng Pan owner of Giant Panda Restaurant, located at 463 west 79~ street. We are asking for a ~ on the south elevation of the building. Curremly signage is allowed on only two sides of the building with signs now placed on the North and West sides. We applied for and were issued a permit for the sign on the ~outh devation- Upon recdpt of the pemfit we mmmfactured and installed the sign for Mr. Pan If we had been informed that we could not place a ~ on the South elevation of the building we never would have made the ~ However Mr. Pan has a substantial expetme caused by the cities mistake of issuing the permit. We ave It should further be noted that other developments within the city oxrrenfly have sign on more than two sides. Market square has signs on all four sides. The building occupied by Byerly's has sigtm on three sides. AmerieInn him sign~ on ~ sides and the building occupied by Bell Mortfage has sign on all four sides. ZONING § 20-1303 Tota/Square Maximum Percentage of Wall Wall Area in Square Feet Footage of Signs 11% 1,201~1,800 198 9% 1,801--2,400 216 7% 2,401--3~00 224 5% 3,201~4,500 230 3% 4,5O0+ 240 (3) Wall signs shall not include product adverti~n~. Wall signs nhn11 only include te_-nnt identification, tenant logo or registered trademark, center name, or any comblnntion of the three. (Ord. No. 231, § 1, 1-9-95) Sec~ 20-1303. Highway, general business districts and central business districts. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any "BH", '~BG", or "CBD" District: The folloxving table lists the standards for freestanding and ground low profile signs in the BH, BG, or CBD zone. Pylon Ground Low Profile;;c Principal Height (feet) Sign Size Height (feet) Sign Size Structure (square feet) (square feet) 50,000' sq. i~. or 20 - 80 10 80 greater Less than 50,000 16. 64 8 64 sq. f~. (1) (2) (3) Pylon business sign. Pylon signs are permitted on parcels that abut State Highway corridors only. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be permitted. This sign may identify the name of the center or the major tenants. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal structure as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted per each outlot or separate b,;ldlng pad that has street frontage. The height and square footage of the sign shn11 be based on the table above. Such signs shall be located at least three hundred (300) feet from any other pylon or ground sign and at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Wall business signs. Wall business signs shnll be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a buflding only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage esf_~h];,hed in the following table: Supp. No. 14 1271 § 20-1303 CHANIJ_ASSEN CITY CODE Maximum Percentage of Wall Wall Area in Square Feet MazbrmmSquare FootaSe of Sign 15% 0 500 90 13% 601--1,200 156 11% 1,201--1,800 198 9% 1,801--2,400 216 7% 5% 3,201--4,500 4,500+ 3% 224 230 (4) Menu board. One (1) menu board sign per reetaur~nt use is permi~ with a drive-through facility. Such sign shall not exceed forty-five (45) square feet in size nor greater than eight (8) feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition to any other sign pertained in the zonin~ dis/rig/;. (Ord. No. 314, § 2, 3-26-01) Sec. 20-1304. Industrial office park signs. The (1) (2) (3) follox~4ng signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP district: Pylon or ground low profile business signs. Pylon signs are permitted on parcels that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A pylon sign shnll not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. · . Ground low profde business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted r per site for each street frontage. Such sign shal! not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the followin~ table: Maximum Percentage of Wall WallArea in Square Feet 15% 0--600 13% 601--1,200 Maximum Square Footage of Sign 90 156 11% 1,201--1,800 198 9% 1,801--2,400 216 7% 2,401~3,200 224 5% 3,201--4,500 230 Supp. No. 14 1272 .o SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION CONT. COPY Permit# ~ ~' ¢..'~~ Permit Fee $ ~'~. o~ Zon~. ~ Address: Applicant: .'.ALL FOR ~: AND INSPECTiOt!S REQUIRED ~'~ ......... '"' .... '"' " PERMITS · ~.~.'~:,, ~,,,;,-. c; ..-..., ,-,, BEFORE ~ INSPECTION ~;!UST BE ON JC F',~,L- .. . T~nporary Sign: From:. / / To: TYPE OF SIGN ,~LL TIh~-S / / ' 'i': ,:7.. ~-~',Ar B ,.CITE A: Height: Total.Ama: Logo Area: ft ft. n. si. fi- sq. fc · coveras~ by sis~ If'a Monuui~nt or Pylon ~. Total Height (~ s;'~,~:) ~ a · · .. Value of Sign: t/st/mated Date' of Completion: Variance Requir~ . Yes _~_ No Planai~g D~partm,mt Case Number:. W'dl thc sign be located/n a pub[/c dra/nag~ or utility eascm~mt: NOTE: Please attach an elevation drawing to scale of'the entire wall of the buildi-~ to which the . · sign is to be affixed, accurately locating the sign. If the sign is free stand~, auach a site plan showing thc exact location of the sign in relation to the proper:y Lines and plans/ncl/cat/ng the manner thc sign and/or its support will be cons~cted. ' TH~ UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGRESS TO DO ALL WORK l~l ACCORDANCE WITH CHAI%"dASSHN CITY CODE AND THE RULINGS OF THE BUILDING INSPECI'IONS DM$ION. ' Applicant's Signature: ~ ~ Date: / /,~7/~_~., Managemeat's Si/nature:., ' APPROVALS' Buildin~ _ ~C--' Plannin~.'~ . ,i 1o · · Date: · · ,. m , · m · 'L · i CFFYOF CHANHg EN PO Box 147 Chanhas.~n, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Englfleerlng Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Reo'eation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Web Site ~;~;w. ci.fl'tanha.~n.mn.us February 11, 2003 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Pang Pan Giant Panda 463 West 79"' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE,: Wall Signage on South Building Elevation As you are aware, the sign permit issued for the sign on the south face of the building was issued in error and in violation of the site plan approved in June 1996, Site Plan g96-4, for the site. In issuing the sign permit, I reviewed the sign for compliance with the sign code. However, I did not review the conditions of approval for site plan g96-4 which limited signage to only two building elevations. In January, 1999, a request for an amendment to the site plan agreement to permit signage on the south elevation of the building was denied by the city. Signage was located on the north and west elevations of the building at the time of your sign permit application. The sign you proposed was on the south elevation. Upon learning of the error, I went to the site, at approximately 3:00 p.m. Thursday, February 6, 2003, and advised you and the sign installer that the sign was not permitted, the permit was issued in error, and the sign must be removed. As an alternate, I told you that if you could get the property owner to remove their sign on the north elevation and relocate it to the south elevation, then the conditions would be satisfied and you could keep your sign. I told you that your administrative options were to request a variance from the sign ordinance or amend the conditions of the site plan approval, which would require public hearings and city council approval. However, I told you that until that had been resolved, you must remove the sign. When asked what would happen if you did not remove the sign, I told you and the sign contractor that violation of city ordinance was a misdemeanor (with penalties up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000.00 fine for each day of violation). I have provided you with copies of the city's sign ordinance related to wall signage, a copy of the signage criteria for the development from the site plan agreement, and the minutes of the city council meeting denying the amendment to the site plan conditions. The sign contractor then requested that we meet with Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, to see if there was a compromise to removing the sign The CIty of Chanhassen, A grmving community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing dov, mtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play. Mr. Peng Pan February l 1, 2003 Page 2 right away. He argued that the sign should be permitted to stay while you pursued finding an alternative resolution. Kate Aaneneson contacted Roger Knutson, City Attorney, to see what alternatives were possible. He concurred that they city could require that the sign be removed. However, since the sign company proceeded with the sign installation in reliance on a permit, we could also let the sign remain on the building until you have gone through the alternatives of having the property owner agree to changing the sign location or proceeding through a variance process or an amendment to the conditions of site plan approval. Delaying enforcement does not provide you with any implied standing for the sign, but permits you to proceed through an administrative process without fear of civil action. While the sign which was installed is in violation of the site plan agreement and should be removed, the city will withhold enforcement of the city requirements to permit you to pursue an alternative resolution. By Tuesday, February 18, 2003, you must either submit a development review application (enclosed) requesting a variance for signage on three sides of the building, or submit an executed agreement with the property owner stating that the owner will remove the sign on the north side of the building. If you do not submit an application or an executed agreement by the deadline, you will be required to remove the signage from the south side of the building by Tuesday, February 25, 2003. Please note that the property owner will need to sign the development review application. The following is the Signage Criteria approved as part of the site plan approval: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display area shall not exceed 24 square feet. c. All signs require a separate sign permit. d. The signage will have consistency'throughout the development and add an archi~ accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, material and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permiued. g. Individual letters shall not exceed 2 feet in height. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be ~tted on the sigue. Mr. Peng Pan February 11, 2003 Page 3 i. One pylon sign is permitted. The axea of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. jl The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on each driveway at the exit points of site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff, should be provided prior to requesting a sign permiL The sign you have installed on the south elevation is in violation of criteria b. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1131. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure ¢: Attracta Sign Michael E. Ramsey NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Sign Vadance APPLICANT: Mike Ramsey/Giant Panda LOCATION: 463 West 79th Street NOTICE: You am invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal In your area. The applicant, Mike Ramsey, is requesting a sign variance located at 463 West 79th Street, Hi-Way 5 Center, Giant Panda. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public headng through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments am received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dudng office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Fdday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it Is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public headng has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 6, 2003. BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INC PO BOX 730 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLUE CIRCI~ INVESTMENT CO 1304 MI~I)ICINE LAKE DI~rE 30i PLYMOUTH MN 55441 AMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO C/O ERNST & YOUNG t .l.p PO BOX 06529 CHICA~ IL 60606 PARK NICOT.T.WI' ttEAL~ SERVICES 3800 PARK NICOT.T.Wr BLVD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 MICHAEL J SORENSEN 12625 58TH ST MAYER MN 5536O CHCR LLC 450 POND PROMENADE CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317 INFINrrY OF CHANHASSEN LLC 1865 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 SILO I I.,I~ 200 HWY 13W BURNSV~J.R MN 55337 INFINrrY OF EHANHASSEN LLC 1865 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 VH J.AGES ON THE PONDS ASSN INC 551 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 APPLE AMERICAN LP (APPI.Ri~EE'S) C/O AVTAX INC 1025 WEST EVERETT RD LAKE FOREST IL 60045 HOI.fi)AY STATION STORES INC 4567 80TH ST W BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 79TH STREET CENTER PARTNERSHIP 684 EXCELSIOR BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAR~. E RAMSEY 6362 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN MN 55317 B 4DI.LC 555 3RD AVE NW HUTCtHNSON MN 55350 CHANI-IASSEN ~ 531 79TH ST W CltANI-IA~EN 55317 BAM PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC 440 79TI-I ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BROWN PROPERTIES LLC C/O GARY L BROWN 1831 KOEHNEN CIR W EXCELSIOR MN 55331