Loading...
1i Buffalo Wild Wings VarianceCITY OF P. CL DATE: March 18, 03 ~ C.C. DATE: April 14, 03 ........ -~ REVIEW DEADLINE: 4, 15, 03 CASE: 03-4 Variance BY: AMaff:v STAFF REPORT Z LOCATION: APPLICANT: Variance to allow a second wall mounted sign on a two tenant building with one street frontage for Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurant located in a Highway Business District. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3~d Addition. North of West 79th Street and East of Applebee's Restaurant and Tires Plus and South of Twin Cities & Western Railroad Buffalo Wild Wings 1600 Utica Avenue South Minneapolis, MN (952)593-9943 Property Owne~. Infinity of Chanhassen, LI~ 1865 West Wayzata Boulevard Long Take, MN 55356' (952)473-2633 .Ltl BI-I, Highway Business District ACREAGE: 1.84 acres SUMMARY OF REQUF~T: Variance to allow a second wall mounted sign on a two tenant building with one street frontag~ for Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurant located in a Highway Business District. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CTrY DISCRETiON IN DECISION-MAKING: ' The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets thc standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. Thc City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the bmden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet thc standards in thc ordinance. ~ -W ~~~State Hw Buffalo Wild Wings ~'~-'~' ~ Q April 14 2003 Page 2 On March 18, 2003, the Planning Comminsion reviewed and recommended approval of this application with conditions. Since the meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans to address the Planning Commi~lon's concerns. This report has been modified to reflect these changes. All new information will apInar in bold. BACKGROUND On October 14, 2002, the City Council approved Site Plan Review 902-8 as shown on the site plan dated August 30, 2002, revised October 8, 2002, for an 8,300 square foot building with a variance to allow a 67% hard surface coverage and reduction in parking, based on the findings of the staff report, and subject to conditions. The submittal did not include a sign plan. Staff added the following condition to address signs on the building: Signage criteria: a. b. e. The site shall be permitted one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. One wall monnLml_ M_.on per _oeo_~pant ~hnll be permitted along the sOUth elevatiom The total sign display area shall not exceed 189 square feet. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an.architectm~ accent to the building. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. Applebee's and Tires Plus both have one sign only. Each applied for a variance to allow them a second sign and were denied. However, both buildings are single tenant buildings. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS One wall mounted sign shall be permitted per street frontage. Sec. 20-1253. Variances. 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. Written application for a variance shall be filed with the planning department and shall be supplemented with reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The application shall be processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements dictated for variances in section 20-29. No variance shall be granted by the city Buffalo Wild Wings xsn.~,~, ~o April 14 2003 Page 3 council unless it has received the affirmative vote of at least simple majority of the full city council. ANALYSIS The building is located north of West 79t~ Street and is currently under constmffdon. It is proposed to be occupied by two restaurants (Buffalo Wild Wings and Chipotle). When staff began meeting with the developer of the building in 2002, we advised them to locate the building toward the street to hide the parking. The developer complied with this recommendation; however, entrances into the building are located facing the parking lot. The sign ordinance permits signage along building elevations with street frontage only. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit wall signage on the north elevation (facing the parking lot). The applicant is concerned that once/n the parking lot of Crossroads Plaza, guests will not know which door serves each tenant. Since customer parking is located on the north side of the building and since building entrances are proposed on that side also, staff supports wall signage on the north side of the building. As an alternative to wall signage, window signage can provide the needed advertising; however, it is not as noticeable as wall mounted signs. The proposed sign along the north elevation has an area of 52.~ 62 square feet. The logo is proposed to have an area of g,3 93 square feet. The ordinance requires logos to occupy no more than 15% of the total sign axea. The proposed logo occupies 4-3 15% of the total sign arem The sign along the south elevation has an area of ~°~.9 105 square feet. The logo is proposed to have an area of 19.~ 15 square feet. The proposed south elevation logo occupies 22.5 15% of the total sign area. The design of both logos .... , ,.~ ...an~.~ ~.. meets ordinance requirements 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 wall signage on the northern elevation is reasonable and consistent with the findings required for granting the signage variances. The building orientation, with entrances and parking areas located on the north side of the building, necessitates the provision of signage on the north side of the building to provide reasonable advertising and directional opportunity. Granting of the variance will not adversely affect the spirit or intent of the sign ordinance. Buffalo Wild Wings ~,~......t. , Q April 14, 2003 .AV.&L&&'~,;A & ..L PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On March 18, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this application. The following is a summary of the motion and the minutes of the meeting: Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance ~034 to allow a wall mounted sign on the northern elevation which has no street frontage as shown on the plans dated February 12, 2003 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the area of the logo not to exceed 15% of the total sign area. e The size of the lettering shall be limited to 16 inches in height or comply with the industry standard, whichever is less. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Lill~g who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. To summarize the Planning Commission issues going forward to council, the letter size. There were 3 commissioners in favor of allowing the north sign with 16 inch lelXem, unless a more restrictive size was found to be appropriate. Two disagreed with that. The only work with staff issue was brought up by Commissioner Claybaugh that there is currently no rock entrance, no silt fence and the entrance on 79th Street seems to be causing excess silt on the street that the Planning Commission would like addressed before this item goes to City Council so staff can update City Council on their status. The silt fence has been installed and the street has been cleaned. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the m.,,.,:.,- ~-~-.-.:--:.-. City Co,,ndl adopt the following motion: J JJ~JJ~ ~l" """ 'l~J~] A J.L,LA.&.iLA.&a~ l,,./~,dI~llllllllbjuj'll'/lA ~W~I I llll~ ~A~ V J ~J allow a wall mounted sign on the north elevation, which has no street frontage, as shown on plans dated February 12, 2003 and revised on March 20, 2003, with the following condition: 1 The ~=.=u~-....,..,, ..~a .... +,. ..... *' +'-- sign · .my ................... logo shall not m exceed 15% of the total ar~·'! Buffalo Wild Wings ~'~"'"'~' ~ ~ April 14, 2003 j.v J.E.M. n~,a I. Page 5 , ATTACHMFNTS Application and Narrative. Planning Commission minutes dated March 18, 2003. Plans dated February 12, 2003, revised March 20, 2003. · · , CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ADDRESS: ~ G, O O ~'/'1~... ,A~ ',~,V~: .Se, TELEPHONE (Day time} ~ ~' Z ~ ~ .~ - ~'~ ~'/~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Intedm Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit . Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits X Sign Plan Review Plan Review* Subdivision* Ternpomry Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance X Escrow for Filing fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 CU P/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTALFEE$ Z ~'O. ~o A list of all property owners within 500 feet o~ the boundarlea o~ the property must be Included with the appiicalio~. .. .:~- ~; Building matmfld eamplee must be eubmltt~ with eit~ plan reviews. , *Twenty-slx full size folded copies d Ute plans must be submlfl~, Inch~llng an 8½' X 11; 'md~ c~y d transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the clevei~ contract NOTE - When multiple applications am processed, the appropdate fee shall be cha~ged for each applk;ation. PROJECT NAME LOCATION TOTAL ^CREA E WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING YES X NO REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provision& Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten busi~ days of application submitlal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of apprmafion. This is to certify that I am making application for the described acl~3n 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 par[y whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownemhip (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Trde, 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 ofthe deadlines for submiesion of material and the progress ofthis application. I furb'mr understand that addEional fees may be charged for consurdng 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 w~hin 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is nol~jing the apprmant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review Signature Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receii/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 1he report will be ma#ed to the applicants address. 1600 Utica Aveeue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone 952.593.9943 Fax 952.593.9787 February 14, 2003 Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Proposed Buffalo Wild Wings 'at Crossroads Plaza, Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Ms. AI-Jaff: We am writing to respectfully request a Variance under Section 20-1303 of the City of Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (BH - Highway and Business District) for one (1) additional wall business sign on non-street frontage. The pmpos .ed sign would be ' located on the north wall of the building, Immediately adjacent to the entrance for the" Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant. The proposed sign and its corresponding location am detailed on the attached rendering from Lawrence Sign dated February 12, 2003. . . After carefully reviewing the characteristics of the site, wa believe that the circumstances- are unique to the property and strict compliance with the code would create a hardship. The following outlines our findings: 1 Under previous review, the City'reqUired the developer to position the. Crossroads Plaza building on the south end of the parcel with the parking lot On the north end, creating the need for the requested variation. -The current code . specifies that a wall business sign be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant. Because of the position of the building on the parcel, the' parking lot and entrance for Buffalo Wild Wings is not visible from street frontage. ' We believe that the literal enforcement of the code causes hardship 'in the following ways: (a) the inability to designate the occupants of a multi-tenant : building; (b) once in the parking lot of Crossroads Plaza, guests will not know which door serves each tenant; and, (c) Buffalo Wild Wings is situated farthest from the site entrance, which may create a loss of customers who inadvertently entered other retailem because of a lack of identification. 1 A similar multi-tenant building within the BH District is the Highway 6 Center located east of the subject property. The Giant Panda restaurant is a tenant in the center and occupies the end-cap space farthest from the site entrance, comparable to the Buffalo Wild Wings location at. Crossroads Plaza. Giant Panda has two wall business signs, one on the west facade and one on the south facade fronting Highway 5. We believe that this is a comparable circumstance to the proposed variation. · 1 . The nearest property owners within the BH District are Applebee~s restaurant and Tires Plus. Both businesses occupy a single-use building featuring their pmtotypical designs, with their respective sign and entrance clearly visible from street frontage on West 79th Street. By contrast, the Crossroads Plaza building is a multi-tenant facility with the only wall signs on the opposite side of the building from the parking lot end main entrance. We am excited about joining your community and anxious to proceed with our development. We look forward to your review of our application and .your recommendation. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to ' contact me directly at 952-278-9575. Director, Corpora'~Dan'~el Wa_bh te R~d Esta/ te Enclosure Sue Norstrom - Buffalo Wild Wings Scott Schmitt- Clearwater Development . NO~ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variance for Wall Signage APPLICANT: Clearwater Development Group LOCATION: 550 West 79th Street NOTICE: You am Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Clearwater Development LLC, is requesting a variance for wall signage located at 550 West 79th Street, Buffalo Wild Wings. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input f~om the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing 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 are 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 during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmean at 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public.hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 6, 2003. Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160® BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INC PO BOX 730 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BAM PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC 440 79TH ST W CI-IANI-IAS~ MN 55317 TOM-DON REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS C/O DONALD M GUU 13679 DUNBAR WAY APPLE VAI J.~Y MN 55124 CHANI-IASSEN PROPERTIES ~ 570 PAULY DRPO BOX 514 CHAN-HASSEN MN 55317 INFINrrY OF CHANHASSEN LLC 1865 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 SILO ILLC 200 HWY 13W BURNSVI~ J.g. MN 55337 INFINITY OF CHANI-IASSEN LLC 1865 W WAYZATA BI:,. ~._.~_~.~ LONG LAKE.... - ..... ~V~lq 55356 ~ . WHEATSTONE RESTA~ GROUP 250 EAST LAKE DR CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317 APPLE AMERICAN LP (APPLEBEE'S) C/O AVTAX INC 1025 WEST EVEKETr RD LAKE FOREST IL 60045 VII J.AGES ON THE PONDS ASSN INC 551 78TH ST W . . CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT DrYrRICH 826 BROADWAaDI~OX 755 NEW ULM MN 56073 HO! JDAY STATION STORES INC 4567 80TH ST W' BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 79TH STREET CENTER PARTNERSHIP 684 EXCELSIOR BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAgJ. E RAMSEY 6362 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN MN 55317 79TH STREET CENTER PARTNERSHIP 684EXCELSIOR BLVD--.. EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN INN 531 79TH ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 B 4DLLC 555 3RD AVE NW HUTCHINSON MN 55350 Address Labels Laser 5160® Site Plan of Project ~'~ CITY'OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 1 3 2003 CHANHASSEN PI.ANNIN(3 DEFT North CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION RF~ULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planne~, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRES~ FOR ALL ITEM~: Saner & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Largo Drive Blackowiak: Tonight we have a full agenda with 5 items open for public heafin~. Two comments about that. Number one, we will take a break at approximately 9:00. A 5 or 10 minllte water break, whatever for commissioners. That will be at around 9:00, or as close to that as possible. And number two, as outlined in the official By-laws, the Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. We will do our best to make sure that we are able to hear all items by that 10:30 deadline. However, if at our 9:00 break we're seeing that we're not making substantial progress toward that goal, we may ask that some of the later item or items be moved to the next available meeting where they would be first on the agenda on the next meeting, but we'll know a little bit more at around 9:00 so we'll let you know how that goes. We'll try to be concise this evening. With that let's go to item number 1. PlvrBLIC ItEARllNG: CONSmER ~ R~QIrIF. ST FOR A yAR~AN~ FOR W.~LL SIGNAGE LOCATED AT 5500 WF_~T 79TM STREET, BUFF.AI~) WHJ) WINC~, (~'LEARWATER DEyELQPlVI~;NT C~R01J'P~ LLC. N~me Address Doug Paquay Daniel Walsh Scott Ruzin Scott Schmitt 1600 Utica Avenue So, ~VFmneapolis 1600 Utica Avenue So, lVfinneat~lis 945 Pierce Buffer Route, St. Paul 12560 46z Street, Waconia Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Sacchet: Yes, real quick a few questions. So since the sign~ are on opposite sides of the building, you never see both signs at the same time? Al-laffi No. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sac~hex: Now do you calculate the percentage of the sign coverage? That was a little bit of a riddle to m~. Al-Jaff: We pulled out, and that was a discussion that we had earlier with the applicant. We pulled out the definition of sign area and based upon the way we were calculating it we basically did this. Sacchex: So you take the whole space including the white space between the letters? AI-Jaff: Correct. Sacchex: When you calculate it. Okay. Al-$aff: However that's not how the ordinance reads. The ordinance says take straight lines. Sacchet: Take the full. AMa_fi: Length of the sign. Sacchet: Okay. And then for the symbol you do the whole rectangle? Okay, thsnlr you. Al-laff: And we discussed this and the applicant and staff, we believe that we can work out these details. They would be able to meet the ordimmce requirements. Saechet: There's a mix up in the retmrt. It talks about the western elevation. Should be probably the northern. Now I have my main question though about the two elevations. The two drawings that we were provided. These two. It seems like the signs are on opposite sides of the building. Could yon explain which side of the building really the Buffalo Wild Wing is and why the picun~,, the other sign's going to be just a post or is that a mistake in how it's drawn? Al-laff: This portion. Sacchex: It's a mistake how it's drawn. Okay. Al-Jaff: This portion of the building is to be occupied by Buffalo V~fld Wing and then... Sacchet: So it's the eastern part, and I guess I cam ask the applicant to clarify how the drawing works. Now one last questiom The sign on the north side, on the parking lot side is 24 inch letters, the big letters. On the south side it's 16 inch letters. That seems to be kind of backwards because you want to see it from a distance from the south, while on the north you're closer in the parking lot. Do you know anything or should I ask that question to the applicant? Al-Jaff: Staff recommends you ask that question of the applicant. Sacchex: Alright, I'll do that. Thank you. That's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Lillehaug: Another quick question. You mentioned an alternate. Is another alternate to use a monument sign on the north? I don't know if that would really be feasible but is that allowed? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Al-laff: The entire site is permitted one monument sign, and it was intended to be placed at the entrance to direct traffic into this area. Lillehaug: So that really wouldn't serve the purpose of what the applicant's problem is then so. A1-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. Thanks. Blackowiak: Craig, questions? Claybaugh: Yeah I have some questions. Fd just like you to respond to what, the question that Commissioner Sacchet asked you. What did you calculate or use the alternative method of calculating the square footage for the signs contrary to the ordinance? I was just curious about that A1-Jaff: It seems like I always get cracke. A by the Planning Commi~ion with calculations. Claybaugh: Well you had just mentioned that, is that the typical way or is that the way the ordinance reads and you said no it wasn't. AI-Jaff: According to the, Bob would you read the definition of sign area. Generous: Actually it provides two altemale ways to calculate it. Claybaugh: Okay, is the way that you calculated it either of those two methods? Generous: Yes. The sign area meaus the area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extmn~ limits of the extreme limits or the actual sign message area. So you could do a tight box around all the letters and the symbols or you can draw a box around the entire area. Claybaugh: Either way. Okay. With respect to, on page 2 under signage criteria. It says the total sign display area shall not exceed 189 square feet, and obviously in doing the calculations that you provided for the two sign areas they were below that. Does that 189 square feet represent. AI-Jaff: Per elevation. Claybaugh: Per elevation for both tenauts or for just singular tenants? Al-~Iaff: For both. So Chipofle as well as Buffalo Wild W'mgs, along the north elevation, cannot exceed 189 square feet. And they will be substautially less than that. Claybaugh: Chipofle will? A1-Jaff: Both. Sacchet: Together. AI-Jaff: Both together. The total area cannot exceed 189. Claybaugh: Okay. Then with respect, I guess I don't necessarily agree with your response to Commissioner Lillehaug regarding the monumenI~ It would seem pretty obvious to me that what the Planning Commission Meeting - March !8, 2003 building is, that it's Wild Wings and Chipotle and it might very well be an opporttmity if the site is allowed one monument, to move that around to the north elevation. Certainly people pulling in that drive know what's in that building with the size signage that's on the exterior so. Has that been given any further consideration by staff? AI-Jaff: No it hasn't. But again the applicant was intending that to be more of a directional sign... Claybaugh: Right, I understand that but. AI-Jaff.' ...it's definitely an option. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Thanks. Slagle: Just one real quick one. What do you think the chances of us seeing an application for a variance from the other tenant? Al4aff: From Chipotle? Slagle: Yeah. Al-Jaff: I have briefly spoken to them about this issue and they said they're comfortable for now with one sign. They want to see how the market goes. If there were issues then they would come before you but for now they're satisfied with one sign only. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: How about Applebee's? AIJaff: Applebee's is one tenant. This is a different case. There is a difference between Applebee's, Tires Plus and this one in staff's opinion. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one question about the math used again, and I don't know if you want to do this or Bob. Did you use these same methods to calculate both sign axeam? Al-Jaffi Yes. Blackowialc Okay. Now I'm really confine. If we look on, what page tells our numbers? Page 3. Oh I'm sorry, I've got the wrong packet. Here it is. Got too much here tonight. Okay, north elevation is let's say 53 square feet. Okay. The letters are larger. South elevation, 87 square feet. Lettem are smaller. How does that happen? Aldaff: Switch them around. The south is actually the larger. It was intended, when I did the calculation I was assuming the larger square footage was for. Sacchet: South which happens to be nordz Al4aff.' For the south elevation. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: So we should switch that then saying that the north elevation has an area of 86.9 square feet, is that correct? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Blackowiak: And the south elevation has 52.88 squm'e feet. Okay. And then I assume that the logo are~ are still correct as written. 23 feet on the north, 19.6 on the south. Aldaff: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. So then, south elevation logo, 22.6 percent of the total sign area. Does that still hold? AI-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. North elevation 43 percent? I don't think that sounds right. I'm just trying to track these numbers and I'm sorry I hate to keep coming back to the numbers here but I want to make sure Fm tracing therm Sacchet: The logo is different. See here... Blackowiak: So it's 4 by. Sacchet: It's 4 by 5.9 and here it's 4 by 4.11. Blackowiak: Okay so 20, so that's 20 on the south. Wait. No, that would be north. 4 by 5 roughly. Sacchet: 4 by 5 roughly on the north. Blackowiak: On the north, so the 19.6 goes to the north? And then the. Sacchet: Yes, that's consistent. Blackowiak: 4 times 6 is still not quite right them Okay, 19.6 on the north so the whole thing's flip hopped? Al4aff: Yes. Blackowiak: So 19.6 on the north, 23 on the south. Okay. I think I'm tracking now. A14aff: And again we will work out all of those. Blackowiak: Right. It just didn't make sense to me and I just wanted to make sure we had the right numbers in the right spot before we moved forward. Alright. Thank you. At thi~ point the applicant or their designee is invited to step up to the microphone. State youx name and addr~s for the record. Scott Ruzin: Hi, good evening. I'm Scott Ruzin with Lawrence Sign Company, 945 Pierce Buffer Route in St. Paul, Minnesota. Slagle: Scott, can you pull the microphone towards you? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Scott Ruzin: Would you like me to repeat that? Blackowiak: You know what, pull it even farther. There we go. Start over agaim Scott Ruzin: Scott Ruzin from Lawrence Sign Company, 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55104. We have several things to talk about but first I'd like to say that staff has been very kind and helpful and responsive to all of the questions and desires and we are willing to work with them to adhm to the ordinance requirements with regard to the way the signage is messing. We found out in asking the proper questions that there are a couple different ways to measure these. One is by putting the continuous box around all of the signage, and one is by measuring them individually, both which comply with your ordinance. That is why we want to work together to make the signage look tasteful, yet do what it's intended to do and drive the traffic through the front door. And what we've found in studying the site a little bit is some unique characteristics as Sharmeen has mentioned. The setback of the building and that's one of the key factors in discussing the monument sign is the building itseff is set just over 200 feet from the monument sign. So once the~ clients or potential clients come into this parking lot, getting them to the appropriate front door with two tenants in this building is kind of a challenge. And Chipotle at this point has chosen to do a lot of interior signs hanging in the window and things diff~ than what Wild Wings would like to do. We'd like to keep it real clean. Real tasteful, yet definitive for thek customer on where their entrance is. With regard to signage on the other side, the south elevation, I'd like to if I may just set a plan set down here. And actually the drawing that you have showed the signage here. And as you noticed earlier they're transposed and the signage, Buffalo Wild Wings building and their square footage is actually here. We'd like to put signage in the center here on this elevation rather than over on the side, and that was my error and early on not reviewing the plan sets appropriately. So your drawing for the south elevation would show similar signage, properly proportioned into that area with the square footage complying with what your ordinance would allow. So we would again work with staff to provide something tasteful that meets both the needs of Buffalo W'fld Wings and the city criteria. Blackowialc Alright, anything else to add? Scott Ruzin: Nothing else to add other than everything's been great. Sharmeen's been a great help and we hope we can work together to provide a package that everybody wins with_ Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. So commissioners, do you have questions of the applicant right now? No? Slagle: I just had one. Not too much to this gentleman but I believe this gentleman who presented the last time. It was here. I just wanted to clarify in my mind, just memory sometimes fails but did we not discuss, I think it was Commissioner Sacchet who had raised the thought of an additional sign and I think the question was asked would window signage suffice at that time, because I think we all had a concern about the parking lot. And I don't remember the answer. Or ff you even remember the question. Scott Schmitt: I do. Blackowiak: You know what, before you start can you just state your name and a_ddress to put that on the record. Scott Schmitt: Absolutely. My name is Scott Sclamitt. I'm with Clearwater Development. Add,ss is 12560-46t~ Street in Watertown, Minnesota. And the answer to the question was, or the question what I recall was, you know about the sign issue and will they be coming in for a sign variance for signage over at, and my response at the time was actually, you know the signage is a separate application. We'll review it at that time and right now I didn't know what the answer was to that so at the time I was Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 unaware. I can speak a little bit, just real briefly since I'm up hel'e, that Chipotle, my understanding is as well that the tenant is not intending on going for a sign variance. The western elevation, when you drive, the whole point of the whole signage thing is not so much are they there. It's where's their front door, and on the north elevation of the building, which is I assume here. Hem we go. The north elevation of the building has got all 3, has got 2 tenants plus a trash enclosure door on it. You recall pan of the approval was an internal trash enclosure. The only logical spot for that for access was on the north side. We couldn't get on the west or the south without jeopardizing our green space, so we had no choice but to put the trash enclosure door fight here. And so what's ha~ed with Chipofle is they've got their signage on the south elevation. The southwest elevation and then window signage as you come around the building so there's really no question with Chipofle as to where Chipotle is. And you kind of chuckle and think, well there's 2 tenants and how are you going to not figure out where they are but as a developer you almost have to figure that every person that comes to your center is a complete moron and that they really do have a tough time. If they lose sight of that front door, it affects business. As much as we all sit here and laugh, it really does from the developer' s perspective and so the combination of the trash door on the front side, no identification other than walking around the building with Chipofle. No signage above their door, it becolnes necessary to direct traffic to their front door. It's the combination of the three items. Chipotle doesn't feel that there will be a need because you have that presence here. You don't ever loose sight of where Chipofle is. So, any other questions? Slagle: Thanks for your memory. Scott Schmitt: Sure. Slagle: I want to direct something at staff just quickly. I don't recall the trash doors being on th~ north elevation. They very well could have. I thought they were going to be on the east elevation. AI-Jaff: You are correct. They were intended to be on the east elevation. One of the things that we looked at from internal circulation standpoint was, they took one of the windows. Expanded it into span row glass door so we are still the same as far as a~ces. You shouldn't be able to tell that that is a trash enclosure area. Appearance wise it's, instead of a window you have a door. A glass door. Slagle: Which will be shut most the time. Al-Jaff: All the time. Sacchet: Yeah, a quick question too. Blackowiak: Is this for the applicant or. Sacchet: The applicant. Yeah, I'm still have a question for the applicant. I certainly understand you would want to keep people on the fight door, not through the trash door. One question to your clarification that on the south side, the sign is going to be in the middle of the building. Are you expecting the sign to be the same size or similar size that was ctaxently presenmd on what we got from you? Scott Ruzin: We'd like it to be similar in size. I think the letters will be slightly larger. Proponi~y fit that space. We'd like it to be tasteful yet proportionate and maximize the visibility as well at the same time. Sacchet: Because my original question for you was, why are the letters bigger on the north side than on the south side when probably on the south side you would have more of a motivation to be perceived Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 from a distance than from north where people axe in the parking lot or close. Can you put that into perspective briefly please. Scott Ruzin: It was previously, the size was previously limited by the building elevation and the height we had to work with here, so we couldn't drive those letters to be much larger than they are on the drawings that you have them without surpassing the roof line or something similar. Sacchet: Do you perceive the need to have the letters be like 24 inch on the north side though? Scott Ruzin: Well we would certainly like that. Sacchet: I mean in terms of proportional to the staff that is ~, that' s not your main reasoning there is it? Scott Ruzin: Proportionately they're probably going to fall between 18 and 20 to fit in that space. 24 with the grill and bar underneath it. It'd be pretty close. Proportionately they're probably going to be between 1 8 and 20 on those letters. Sacchet: Thank you. Scott Ruzin: You're welcome. Blackowiak: Go ahead if you have a question. Claybaugh: Yeah. With respect to the size of the signage and the lettering on the north elevatiom Is them any data to support what would be the standard for the size of that parking lot? Whether that's a 200 foot sight line that you're trying to capture. Scott Ruzin: There are standards. Claybaugh: Okay. Scott Ruzin: I don't have those in front of me but there certainly are standards as far as visibility goes. You're pretty close. That's a couple hundred feet for a 24 inch letter, depending on what rate of speed these potential clients are traveling at, so we're close. Claybaugh: I'm assuming they'd be at foot speed. Foot speed at 200 feet. I assume they eau find the parking lot. Scott Ruzin: Right. Some of the folks as they're coming into the parking lot, depending on where they're at and how they're jostling through traffic may have better visibility than others. That also proportionately with relation to what kind of square footage they have on that building front. Claybaugh: I'm not so much corning from the pempecfive of proportion as much as I am dove tailing the comment that Scott made, where's the front door? So what do you need to identify justifiably in terms of letter size, for people, palrons where the front door is? Scott Ruzin: That's tough to say. That can get into a subjective discussion and whether... Claybaugh: There's got to be some guidelines out ~. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Scott Ruzin: There is fact and if we need to supply that I can. It's my guess that it's pretty close now. 200 feet for a 24 inch letter below 30 miles an hour. It's going to be similar to that, and I wish I would have had that with me tonight to equip you with that but I don't. Claybaugh: One of the other commissioners identified that the lettering was 16 inches and 23. I didn't see that anywhere myseff but did you verify? Scott Ruzin: 16 and 24. It's noted to the left of the letters themselves. There are some measurement indicators there for you. Claybaugh: Okay. Just to recap so I understand. That wasn't the prime consideration fi-om designing that then in terms of what the lettering size was mandated by your patrons needs? Scott Ruzin: Yes. We were viewing it from the road which is just over 200 feet from that particular area there. Claybaugh: And then I had one question for staff with respect to the relocation of the trash enclosure. Was the parking affected by that at all? A1-Jaff: No. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Blaekowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I'll make mine quiclc Have you considered using a monument sign in any combination to eliminate a variance need? Scott Ruzin: There will be a monmnent sign at that site and it is over 200 feet from that entrance and it is split. It's a small monument sign and it's split with two tenant panels. One for Wild Wings and one for Chipotle. And it's going to certainly provide identification for where the entrance is, but again once in that lot, driving into the front doors is the main focus on that elevation. Once they get in the lot that's great, but getting them into the Wild W'mgs front door was the focus on that sign~ Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowialc Uli, did you have another question? Sacchet: No, actually it got cleared up, thank you. Blackowiak: It did. Okay. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Blackowialc Alright, thank you. Scott Ruzin: Thanks. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowialc This item is open for a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak 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 hearing for this item. Commissioners comments. Rich, we'll start down at your end. Slagle: Just simply, I certainly can see the merit to having signage to assist the patrons in the parking lot. It might be a tad large, but nonetheless with the parking lot to the north I don't have an issue with it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Well I'm in a lucky to say I told you so. I asked about this coming up when this originally came. I think there is a need for a sign for people to know which door to go into. Certainly you don't want to have them try to go into the trash enclosure. I do believe the 1~ are a little large for the purpose so I would propose that maybe you restrict them to 18 or 16 inches considering you're going to have large letters. You're going to have more room to do a little larger according to what the ordinance allows on the south side where you really need the size. I think that would be a balanced position to take. Blackowiak: Okay Uli, just to clarify. Initially they had proposed 16 inch on the south side. Sacchet: Right, and that will be bigger because they're going to have mom space to play with. Blackowiak: Right, but if that was sufficient for 200 feet from a street on the south side, would you feel that that would be sufficient for 200 feet? Sacchet: Absolutely. Absolutely. Blackowiak: Okay, so maybe your motion or somebody's motion would be not to e. xceed. Sacchet: Not to exceed 16, yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: I tend to disagree. My opinion is we need to stay consistent with, there's numerous other businesses around there that aren't allowed this additional signing and you can go around that whole area and find examples of it. I agree with staff. I think ~'s another option. It might not be as a prestigious option as you indicated. You could use window signing, so there is an option. I think thorn's going to be, that parking lot's going to be full and I don't think thgy're going to have a problem gexting in your door, so that would end my comments. Thanks. Blackowialc Okay. Craig, sign comments first. Claybaugh: Sign comments first. With respect to the signage, I guess I can support it but I would like it governed by an industry reference standard for the size of the parking lot. For someone having gotten out of their car. Not at 40 miles an hour but having parked. Getting out of their vehicle. Looking at the restaurant. Making a decision based on what they can see and I would support it only to that extent. In an unrelated item, having gone out there to preview this for the applicant with respect to the silage, I took a look at the conditions of the site. I didn't see any evidence that...was making consuucfion deliveries over the curb on 79th. Excessive silt on 79~ so I would encourage you to speak with the conuactor out them and try and get that corrected as soon as possible. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I was really kind of tom on this. It seems like it's sign night tonight We're seeing a few different things this evening. One of the issues that I have is that, like Commissioner 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle brought up, we didn't think we were going to see this again. We didn't think that this was going to come back and then Commissioner Sacchet said well, I told you. You know, I thought it was going to come and I can even go one step farther. I think that if we go ahead and approve Buffalo Wild Wings, Chipotle will come in and say you know what, we decided that we too need a sign. So I would, I'm not going to be voting in favor of this because I feel that the south signage is sufficient at this point in time and even though there are no tenants per se, or any neighbors directly to the north that would be impacted I don't think I just feel that we have a standard. That the hardship is, that we haven't met our standards for approving a variance on this. To further, I would offer a suggestion. The monument sign idea is a possibility that a couple commissioners have mentioned, but also we talked about or we had heard about Byerly's possibly coming to us with some type of a monument sign and then they decided to do signage on the building. I think that' s an option as well I mean I don't know that that would necessarily require a variance. I think there might be some options for doing something on the building as more of a directory type sign, as opposed to the large sign on the north side. So those are my comments and we're going to try a new format after our vote tonight. In our meeting last night with City Council we talked about how to get our message across more effectively so one of the things that I'm going to do is, we're going to try to summarize our concerns that will go forward to City Council so bear with us if we muddle through that this evening. I need a motion for this please. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I make the motion that the Planning Commission records approval of the variance 003-4 to allow a wall mounted sign on the northern elevation which has no street frontage as shown on the plans dated February 12, 2003 with the following condition- The applicant shall reduce the area of the logo to not exceed 15 percent of the total sign area. And I'd like to add condition number 2. The size of the lettering shall not exceed 16 inches in height. Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motion- Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Blackowiak: Moved and seconded. Claybaugh: Friendly amendment? Sacchet: Go ahead. Claybaugh: I'd like to further restrict the height of the silage. That it be demonstrated by an industry standard. The necessity for the height of those letters. Sacchet: So we would say not to exceed 16 inches or... Claybaugh: I can't specifically cite ~ standard but they're out there. Blackowialc But lower if the standards call for lower? Sacchet: Take the lower one. Claybaugh: Most restrictive, yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: The more restrictive will apply. Definitely accepted. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~don recommends approval of the variance g03-4 to allow a wall mounted sign on the northern elevation which has no street frontage as shown on the plans dated February 12, 2003 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the area of the logo not to exceed 15% of the total sign area. . The size of the lettering shall be limited to 16 inches in height or comply with the indmmy standard, whichever is less. Ail voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Lill~ who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Blackowiak: This item will go forward to City Council on April 14z. Now's our new thing here. To summarize the Planning Commission issues, this is going forward to council, were the letter size~ There were 3 commissioners in favor of allowing the north sign at 16 inches, unless a more restrictive size was found to be appropriate. 2 disagreed with that. The only work with staff issue we had is brought up by Commissioner Claybaugh that there's no rock entrance, no silt fence and there's entrance on 79~h Street that's causing excess silt on the street, and we would like those issues to be ~ddressed before this item goes to City Council so you can update City Council as to what's happening with those. At this point commissioners do you have any further comments to add for City Council? Slagle: Just a point of clarification. Commissioner Lillehaug, you had mentioned that your comments were in support of statTs recommendation and I think staff was recommealding approval of the variance. Well they offered. Blackowialc Two options. Slagle: If you decided not to. Lillehaug: Mine would be in support of their second option, and that would be denial of the variance as they can utilize window signage or some other means. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioner Sacchet, any fuaher comments? Sacchet: You summarized well, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Mr. Lillehaug, any fimtwx comments for council? Lillehaug: Nope. Claybaugh: I do. With respect to the monet possibffity and moved around to the north elevation. At first that looked like a viable option to me but looking at the parking configuration I could see where that would be obscured as well and wouldn't necessarily serve the purpose so just wanted to make that conunent. Blackowiak: Okay. So those are the Planning Commission comments that we'd like forwarded to City Council in the next report. Thank you all very much. PUBLIC HEARING: 12