Loading...
1j Giant Panda Sign VarianceC 0F CHANH E T'/'ffi ~ I~levard PO Box14/ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Admlnlatratlon Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Building In~pertlons 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: 952227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Plannlnll & 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 v~w~.ci.chanhassen.mn.us TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 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 $ Centre EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. 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 sim plan was that wall signs shall be located on no more than 2 street frontages. The sign ordinance re, quires that wall signage be installed only on elevations with street frontage. In this case, the building abuts West 79th 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. 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 Commi.~sion felt that removal of the signage would be a hardship. (The tenant has alreaidy removed the window signage.) RE(~OMMENDATION City Council action includes approval of one motion: "The 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: 1. The applicant must eliminate the use of window signs for the south unit." The City of Chanhassen * A orm'~ing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding b'ails, and beautiful parks. A g~eat place to live, work, and play. Todd G~rhax~lt April 14, 2003 Page 2 PLANNING COMMLqSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 18, 2003, to review the requested sign variance: CONSIDER THE REOUF_~T FOR A VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE LOCATF~D AT 463 WEST 79TM STREET~ GIANT PANDA~ ~ RAMSEY. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this issue. Public Present: Name Address Paul Punt Peng Pan Jill Ramsey 8014 Dakota Avenue 76O West Village Road, #106 6362 Oxbow Bend Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Plnnning Commission recommands approval of the sign variance for Highway S 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: 1. The applicant must eliminate the use of window si~n for the south windows. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Sacchet opposed the motion bec__ause he thought the no window signage should apply to the whole building. Chairwoman Blackowiak stated the City Council summary as follows: Staff reco~neaded denial of this issue. Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote reco~ approval m 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 exror was not discovered until after 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 right 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 sins, or 3 sided signs or 4 sided signs, that it is justified. And also Uli's comments r~garding the timing issues were very i ,mlxm~ in our decision. Commissioner Slagle stated the assumption 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 elevation. Commi.~sioner Claybaugh highlighted the point he made earlier that he believe it's a unique property insofar as that it really truly does not have any street frontage, and not in order to justify this partioxlar signage but possibly something to address with respect to the signage statute and oidinances in the future. Todd Gerhardt April 14, 2003 Page 3 ATrACX-IMENTS 1. Planning Commission Minutes of March 18, 2003 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 ¢ONSmER ~ I~'Qlff-$T FOR A VARIANCE FOR ~GNAGE LOCATED AT 4~ WEST 7pTM STRtET, GIANT PANDA, ~ ~. 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. Blackowialc 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 reasonable 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 e~. I don't know if it's $50 a month. $100 a month and then af~ that time period they would have to remove it. Claybaugh: Okay. Just a couple of points I wanted to clarify for myself. The application that was previously denied, you just commented if I understood you correctly, that that was a previous owner. It wasn't the current owner. Generous: Correct. Claybaugh: I thought that was i ,mportant. And that when the staff went out and recognized the caxor, that the signage was already installed. Claybaugh: So it was afl. er the fact. It wasn't a question of them willful non-compliance of them proceeding... Generous: Right, they followed, they went under the permit that was issued. Claybaugh: That' s all the questions I have fight now. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, questions? Lillehaug: Yes. Do you know how long the tenant has occupied this building? Generous: I'm not sure. Lillehaug: Not sum. Any idea? A couple years. Okay, I'll ask. Blackowiak: We'll ask yeah. We'll ask the tenant. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Did the applicant originally request to install a sign on the south elevation when they initi'"'"'"'""~ly occupied this building? Generous: Yes, the original owner did. Lillehaug: The original owner but. Generous: The amendment process before this. Lillehaug: Okay. So did they install both the westerly sign and the southerly sign at the same time? Generous: No. Lillehaug: So they did install the westerly sign? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Along with on the monument, the pylon sign out on the south, that was installed? Generous: Correct. LiHehaug: But originally they didn't install this Giant Panda sign on the south elevation? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Was there anything that changed that the tenant thought? ! 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 prcr~s. He wanted to get more visibility so he came to the city for ~ appiication~ Lillehaug: Okay. I'll direct the questions to the tenant then, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions? Sacchex: Yes ! have a few questions. First of all the time line. When was the sign installed? Was it before February llt~ Generous: ! believe so. Sacchex: Was it before February 6~. This is relevant. I'm sorry, it might sound nit picky but. Generous: ~t's February 6~. Sacchex: it was before February Generous: No, it was on February 6~. Sacchex: 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 6~ to tell him that the permit was given in eh'or. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: Cxavect. 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 s~nificant for at least my own reasoning. Now to clarify also in this let~ from February 11~. You pointed out an option that if the ~ owner would be willing to remove the signage on the north end, then the south ~I sign could be conside~xl legitimate. I assurc~ the property owner does not want to give up the sign on the ncr~t~ 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, An~ricInn, the Bell Mortgage. What's the context? Generous: Those are generally within planned unit development and the design standards were created as part of it. Within the Bell Mortgage sign they do have slxee~ frontages on 2 sides and the design standards permit signage on your primary parking side also, which may not be the street frontage. Sacchet: So Bell Mortgage, Americlnn: Byerly's and Market 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 dollars7 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 ask. And then can I just ask how you found out about it? Generous: I received a phone call and someone said ~'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 lef~ and we started 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 presentation? If so, come to the microphone, state your name and address for the Jill Ramsey: I'm Jill Ramsey, 6362 Oxbow Bond, Chanhasson. 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 infiamafion I have. Most of the things I wanted to touch on here are kind of some clarifications. And Fmjust going to go by 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March lg, 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 fu~t thing as far as Mr. PaWs applying for a permit. He has owned the business, C_fiant 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 catne 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 himseff 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 if 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 enwane~ anm't sueet frontage. It's a parking lot connected to the parking lot of the Chanhassen motel and the other issue on sueet frontage, which the gentleman brought up was, there are numerous signs on buildings in Chanhassen. I just did a little tour this af~moon. Culver's has signs on 3 sides. That's a single building, one oocupant 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 increase his business. And once the sign was up, then was told there would be fines. He could have jail firm ff 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 here for a second. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Rich. Slagle: I've got a quick question. Would you have a ballpark figure as to the cost of the sign and the cost of the installation? F 11 assume the removal will be about the same as installation. Jill 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. Slagie: 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 Ia&e Street in St. Louis Parl~ Jill pretty well covered it I think. I think one thing rd tike to add is that Bob had three options that the commission could consider, and I think one 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 paso 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 ~resents 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 enough. 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 be to Mrs. Ramsey actually. And Fm trying to get this straight in my mind. As far as an owner and tenant relations go, I assume that you were awar~ that a sign couldn't go up on the south elevation of the building, would that be a fair question? Blackowiak: Or maybe your husband. Jill Rarnsey: 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 thac Or not so. Lillehaug: 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 Fm right. I believe I remember seeing this when the original owner came in, ~ Ram~y, and chose specifically those 2 locations, north and west as opposed to the sout]~ That was a conscious choice? 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 memory that I do, but because I rememlxx the discussion about specific because there were only 2 and those 2 were chosem A1-Jaff: That's correct. The original required si~tms along meet 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 frontage along Highway 5 for the frontage... Blackowialc On the parking lot just because it made more sense to have it over a temmt's door? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Blackowiak: I'm sorry 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 n~rth 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, wra~ around the unit that we occupied. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Could I also ask Mr. Pan a question? Is this Mr. Pan in the audience? Is that fair? Slagle: You can do whatever you wahl 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? Es that a fair question? Jill Ramsey: The restmmmt has changed hands. The business is under his ownership. The name is the same. So when Giant Panda first went in it was just there. Lillehaug: Thank yom I got it now. Blackowiak: 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 7 Claybaugh: I don't have any questions to ask, no. Blackowiak: No, and I don't have any questions of the applicants either. At this point the item is ~en for a public heating. If anybody would like to co~ on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and aadress for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Craig, we'll start with you. Claybaugh: Thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blaekowiak: I try to mix it up a little bit. Claybaugh: In reviewing the options given by staff, I feel that given the ~ I could support item number 3. I would just like to add that I think that particular building configuration in relation to how it's placed to West 79"~ and Highway 5 creates a little bit of a unique 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 exp~ tonight, it was done in good faith. So as such I think I feel I can support item nnmher 3. Blackowiak: Okay, option number 3 which would be no window signs in exchange for the southern exposure. Claybaugh: That's correct, yes. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any comments? Lillehaug: This one's tough. A Ii~e 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 thac I really do like that. So in regard to that I guess I also would support 3 and I would, in my co~t would be as, to maybe remove the sign on the pylon or monmnent that on that south side also. I'm trying to get fid of some of these si~s. There are si~s galore out there, and it's pretty redundant. I don't think that sign needs to be on the pylon fiR's on that south elevation of the building. Blackowialc Okay, thank you. Uli, comments. Sacchet: Yeah I have a few comments. F'trst 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 distmbed me ever since that place was there. Considering 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 sdamantly 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 eonsi~ 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 cannot 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 mi~,emkes and we have to allow for that. But I don't think we can expect the tenant or the owner to take the txuxlen of staff having ready- a mistake. Plus there are obviously a good number of precedents in the city buildings that have si~s on multiple sides. Now them is a technical difference that's very si~ificanC That those buildings are in PUD, in planned unit developments, which is a totally different set of rules. The~ 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 ~'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 add to Commissioner 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 business so. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, would you go with the, you said not all over? Slagle: Number 3. Number 3. Blackowiak: 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 comment 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 tn penalize them to take down their window signage. Blackowialc Right. You know what, this is going to go to City Council as well so thorn's always another venue. My comments are not unlike the other commissioners, but I'm laughing 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 unic Totally. Regardless of who owns it. Whether it's this owner or another owner, and if another owner decides that window lettering is better for them, then they take down the sign on the south side. I mean I mink 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 presented in the staff report, and I want to refer to number 3. And then quote that Giant Panda delete and not use any window si~s in the furore. And specifically for that tenant only. That'd be it. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is the~ a second? Claybaugh: Second. Blackowiak: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye? Sacchet: Could I make a friendly? Sacchet: I'd like to add that this signage, we recommend approval on the basis that the permit for this signage was issued on January 28m and the sign was actually installed prior to when staff discovered and inf~ned the applicant that this was in error. I think that's i ,mlxa'tant because I don't see any other reason why we would... Blackowiak: Right, and that was some of the notes I was taking for our summaxy to City Council Sacchet: Okay. Planning Commission 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 Commission rm:mnmends approval of the sign variance for itighway 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: 1. The applicant nmst eliminate the use of window signs for the south windows. Ail voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. B lackowialc 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. Blackowialc Okay, that's fine. City Council summary. Staff reco~ denial of this issue. Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote recommended approval to option numb~ 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 the permit was issued and the error was not discovered until ~ the sign was installed, so based on that we feel that it was not the applicant's fault. It also looks cleauer without the window lettering, and they are neighbors to too many people, or specifically Villages PUD right 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 comments regarding the timing issues were very i .mportant in our decision. Commissioners, any additional input to City Council? Slagle: Just one. Assumption being made that the applicant was not aware of the prior denial of this southern elevation. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I mean we are making that assumption. Blaekowiak: 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 ~ddress with respect to our signage statute and ordinances in the ftmn'e. Blackowiak: 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 clarification. You said tenant and Giant Panda but you really mean for this unit. The next person could have... Blackowialc For the specific south trait. 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~ Giam 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. PI,]BLIC HEARINC~: RFOU~ST FOR A LAND USE AMENDM~:_NT FROM RF~IDENTIAL LARGE LQT TO RF~L~ENTIAI. Low DENSITY, REZONINC~ FROM AGRIGUL~ KSTA'rE DISTgIg.'l', A-2~ TO $INGI.E FAMII.Y ~E_NTIAL, RSF, AND ~'UBO~ON OF LQT 1, BLoCK. 1, mu.$m~ QAIc5 INTQ 6 LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FQR TH~: USE QF a FRIyA'I'E ~TREET LoCATED AT 8~00 PQ~R~ BQULRVARD~ ARH.r) RQ~SAVSK-. POWERS OraCLE. Public Present: Nnme Address A_dld Rossavik Mark Kelly George & Sackie Bizek Greg Kahler Cheryl Doty 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? Sacchex: Yeah I have, I'd just, a lot of few questi~. I've still got 16 left because I want to do this real quick. First of all the time line. When was this m-guided from low density to estate? Do you have a time for that? CiTY OF PC DATE: 09/18/0~ CCDATE: 04/14/03 CASE g:. 2003-5 SIGN (VAR) B, RG STAFF REPORT Z LOCATION: APPLICANT: A Sign Variance Request For The Installation Of Wall Signs On Three Sides Of The Building At I-~ghway 5 Centre 463 West 79th Street Giant Panda Attracta Sign Co. 7420 West !~ke Street St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (952) 933-7730 563 West 79'h Street Chaahassen. MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Hi.way Business ACREAGE: N/A DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES: N: S: E: W: BH, I~ghway Business District, commercial building PUD, Villages on Pond and Highway 5 BH, Highway Business District, Holiday BI-I, Highway Business District, Chanhassen Inn WATER AND SEWER: Available to thc site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: This site contains a small shopping center. 2000 LAND USE ~: CommercJe] LEVEL OF DISCRETION The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not thc proposed project meets the stan~ in thc 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 commis~ 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 g964 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 Commigsion and City Council. The purpose of this review is to make ~ 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 79th 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. The shopping center has an existing pylon sign along TH 5 for visibi~ty with all tenants' names displayed. Staff believes Highway 5 Centre's signage criteria are appropriate and purposeful. R 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 mount of time and effort was put into the ori~nal 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 opportunity 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: il 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 otherwise. m 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 amortiz~ the cost of the sign as a business expense. Giant Panda Sign Variance March 18, 2003 Page 4 . Giant 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 is 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 watrante~ 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: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the sign variance for Highway 5 Centre to permit wall signage on three sides of the building based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has visibility on TH 5 with the existing pylon sign." ATTACHMENTS 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 Hearing Notice and Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ~-~-,,,.-,~~ ,~[~ ~-.~. ADDRESS: ")~.~:3 t~'~.~l,-- TELEPHONE (Day time) c~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* ~ Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* OWNER: ADDRESS: · TE E.HONE: 451- r6 3 Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment ~ Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACA/AR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property ownem within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted wllft site plan reviews. *Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 81A'' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be recluired for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING YES ~ NO REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST V/(3~'-; b..~ ~G (:3-1l~.~J .%~r't.~ ~/'l ~"~m~L~; 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 businees 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 described 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. ! 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 are approved by the applicant. Signatu~ of Applicant Signature of_Fee Own//~f Application Received on Date Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be ava#able on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. · MINNE,AI~OU9, MN. 554~1:1 City of Chanhassen 7700 market Blvd. Chanhassen MN $$317 We are requesting this variance on behnlf of Mr. Peng Pan owner of Ginnt Panda Restaurant, located at 463 west 79~' street. We are nsking for a sign on the south elevation of the building. Currently signage is allowed on only two sides of the building with signs now placed on the North and West ides. We applied for and were issued a permit for the sign on the south elevation. Upon recei~ of the permit we mam_~fncb, u~ and installed the sign for Mr. pnn If we had been informed that we could not place a sign on the South elevation of the building we never would have made the sign. However Mr. Pan has a substantial expense caused by the cities mistake of issuing the permit. We are therefore asking that 8 variance be issued for this sign. It should further be noted that other developments within the city cttrrem, ly have sign on more than two sides. Market square has signs on aH four sides. The building occupied by Byerly's has signs on three sides. Am~ri~Tnn has sigtlS on threo ltide~ ~ tho building occupied by Bell Mortlgage has sign on all four sides. ZONING § 20-1303 Maximum Percentage of Wall. Wall Area in Square Feet 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% 4,500+ 240 Tota/Square Footage of S/gns (3) Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs sh,ll only incl~e ten-nt identification, tenant logo or regiztered trademark, center n-me, or any combin-tion 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 following 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 sh.ll be permitted. This sign may identify the name of the center or the m-jor tenants. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal structure ss 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 sh.11 be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that h,, street fron~. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such signs _sh,11 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 s/gns. Wall business signs ,,h.11 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 following table: Supp. No. 14 1271 § 20-1303 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Maximum Percentage Maximum Square of Wall Wall Area in Square Feet Footage of Sign 15% 0 ~)0 90 13% 601--1,200 156 11% 1,201ml,800 198 9% 1,801--2,400 216 7% 2,401--3~200 5% 3,201---4,500 3% 4,500+ 224 230 24O (4 Menu board~ One (1) menu board sign per restaurant use is permi~ with a drive-through facility. Such sign shah not exceed forty-five (45) square feet in size nor greater than eight (8) feet in height. Such sign is pertained in addition to any other sign permitted in the zoning district. (Ord. No. 314, § 2, 3-26-01) Sec. 20-1304. Industrial office park signs. The following signs shah be allowed by permit in any IOP district: (1) 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 shall 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. (2) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business s/gn shall be permitted r per site for each street frontage. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area nor be greater th~n eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. (3) 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 following table: Maximum Percentage of Wall Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square Footage of Sign 15% 0--600 90 13% 601--1,200 156 11% 1,201--1,800 198 9% 1,801--2,400 216 7% 2,401~3,2~ 224 5% 3,201--4,500 230 Supp. No. 14 1272 I I. Itl SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Site Acldr~s: , II I_ P~'mit Fee $. ~'~;). ~ .'./,.I_L --~ Applicant:. om& us~i CONT. COPY I I Zip Code: ~ '~ 17 " Zip Cod~: ~-~/7 · · , ,_ r~. i ...... _ ~' ~ i - PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS REQUIRED B.':FORE ~ II'-ISP~Cr!ON ~AUST BE Obi JC F,v,J - -"'F I ,;:/~ Heigh~ Total Area: Tmporary Sign: From: / / To: / TYPE OF SIGN · · · ~ ~~c~,~ '. fi. covcr~bysis~ _~ .~ '~ sq. · ~a Monum,~t or ~on S~. To~ Hd~t (~ ~) ~ A SIT,':: A: Wording on Sign: · , ao 1¼ . Appmximat~ weight of sign: , Value of Sign: Estimated Date' of Completion: Variance R~uired: . , Yes ~ No Planning Departm~t Case Number:. the sign be located in a public drainage or utility easement: ____ Yes _~. ,No NOTE: Please attach an elevation drawing to scale of the entire wall of the build/ag to which the . · sign is to be affixed, accurately locating the sign. If the sign is fre~ stand/rig, attach a sit~ plan .show/rig the exact location of the sign in relation to the prop~ l/nes and plans/nclicat/ng the manner the sign and/or its support will be consm~cted. THE, UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGRESS TO l~O ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE ~ CHANIqASSEN CITY CODE AND THE RULINGS OF THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DMSION. AppEcant's Signature: _.____ Ma~gcment's Signature: Date: ____/ / · · APPROVALS- · E nee g: Date: . C1TYOF CHANItASSEN 7700 IVlarket 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 & RecreaUon Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Rnsourcel 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 SHe w,,w/.ci.chanhessen.mn.us February 11, 20O3 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Peng Pan Giant Panda 463 West 79"' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Wall Signage on South Building Elevation Dear Mr. Pan: 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 996-4, 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 pro~sed 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 l~lUire 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 Karo Aanenson, Community Development Director, to see if there was a compromise to removing the sign The City of Chanhmen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, U~rivlng businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play. Mr. Pcng Pan February 11, 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 propegy 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 architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, material and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Individual letters shall not exceed 2 feet in height. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permi. 'Red on the signe. Mr. Peng Pan February 11, 2003 Page 3 i. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. 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 permit. 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 C: 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 Variance APPLICANT: Mike Ramsey/Giant Panda LOCATION: 463 West 79th Street NOTICE: You am invlted to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. 'l'he 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 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 sea 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 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 hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 6, 2003. BLOOMBERG COMPANIF..S INC PO BOX 730 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLUE CIRCLE INArESTM]~rr CO 1304 M'P~ICINE IAI(P. DI~"rE 30i PLYMOUTH MN 55441 AMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO C/O ERNST & YOUNG ~ J P PO BOX 06529 CHICAGO IL 60606 PARK NICOT.LET HEALTH SERVICES 3800 PARK NICOT.IY~T BLVD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 MICHART. J SORENSEN 12625 58TH ST MAYER MN 55360 CHCR LLC 450 POND PROMENADE CHANI-LAS~ MN 55317 INFINITY OF~SENLLC 1865WWAYZATABLVD LONGLAKE MN 55356 SILO ILLC 200 HWY 13W BURNSV17 J.R MN 55337 INFINITY OF CHANI-IASSEN ~ 1865 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 Vl~ J.AGES ON THE PONDS ASSN INC 551 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 APPLE AMERICAN LP (APPLF. Bm~.'S) C/O AVTAX INC 1025 WEST EVERETt RD LAKE FOREST IL 60045 HOIJDAY STATION STORES INC 4567 80TH ST W BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 79TH STRP~.T CENTER PARTNERSHIP 684 EXCELSIOR BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHA~U. E RAMSEY 6362 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN MN 55317 B 4DLLC 555 3RD AVE NW HUTCHINSON MN 55350 CHANI-IASSEN INN 531 79TH ST W CHANHASSEN 55317 BAM PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC 440 79TI-I ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BROWN PROPERTIF_3 LLC C/O GARY L BROWN 1831 KOEHNEN CIR W EXCELSIOR MN 55331