6. Tires Plus Sign VarianceCITY OF
,, , CHAN ASSEN
PC DATE: 2/21/96
CC DATE: 3/11/96
CASE #: 96 -1 VAR
By: Rask:v
a
UL
a
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Variance request to allow a wall mounted sign on the west elevation (non-
street frontage) of the future Tires Plus building.
LOCATION: 550 West 79th Street, north of Hwy. 5, east of Market Blvd. on West 79th
Street
APPLICANT: Tires Plus Groupe, Ltd.
701 Ladybird Lane
Burnsville, MN 55337
PRESENT ZONING:
BH, Highway Business District
Action by City Administrator
ACREAGE:
0.7 Acres
Endorsed —2::L� 60A --
DENSITY:
not applicable
Modified
Reject d
Dat -
ADJACENT ZONING
Date submitted to Commisstotf
AND LAND USE:
N - railroad tracks, CBD, Frontier Center
S - BH, Highway 5
Da`e submitted to Council
E - BH, West 79th Street Center (Cheers).
W - BH, American Bank
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
The site is currently vacant. The site is
relatively flat with
very little topographic change.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Commercial
d
Tires Plus Sign Variance
February 21, 1996
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On February 21, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the variance
request for a wall mounted sign on the west elevation (non- street frontage) of the future Tires Plus
building. The Commission recommended by a unanimous vote to deny the variance based on the
findings presented in the staff report. The Commission concurred with staff's analysis that the
applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with the wall signs on the
south elevation and a monument sign.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20- 1303(3) Highway, General, and Central business Districts states that, "Wall business
signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each occupant within a building only..."
Section 20 -1253 states that, "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..."
BACKGROUND
On November 13, 1995, the City Council approved site plan #95 -10, for Tires Plus subject to
thirteen (13) conditions. Condition four (4) stated that, "Signage will only be permitted on the
south elevation and must comply with city code requirements. No panel signs will be permitted. A
separate sign permit will be required for signage." From the time the site plan was submitted, the
applicants have expressed a desire to have additional signage on the east and west elevations. The
original proposal included signage on three elevations along with product advertisements. At the
time of site plan review, staff informed the applicant that signage would be permitted on the south
elevation only.
On February 26, 1996, the City Council denied a sign variance for Applebee's Restaurant to locate
a wall sign on a non - street frontage elevation. The proposed Applebee's Restaurant will be located
on the parcel directly in front of the future Tires Plus Building The Council determined that
Applebee's had a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service with the
one wall sign and monument sign, and therefore denied the variance.
On February 12, 1996, the City Council approved a variance to permit signage on the south
elevation of Brown's Car Wash based on the fact that Mr. Brown was the owner of the parcel to the
south (Amoco Gas Station), which has frontage on Highway 5. Council approved the variance
based on the unique characteristics of the lot and the circumstances associated with Gary Brown
7
Tires Plus Sign Variance
February 21, 1996
Page 3
controlling the buildings and property located adjacent to the new car wash building. In order to
protect the spirit and intent of the sign ordinance, the Council added a condition staging that the wall
sign would have to be removed if the Amoco Station is vacated by Gary Brown. The variance
granted for Gary Brown's Car Wash differs from this variance because Tires Plus does not own the
property to the west. The property to the west of Tires Plus is owned by Americana Bank which
fronts on Market Blvd. and West 79th Street.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends denial of the variance as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that
would warrant the granting of a variance. Neither the size, shape, or topography of the lot prevents
a reasonable opportunity to advertise on the premise. The permitted wall sign on the south
elevation provides adequate visibility to pedestrian and vehicular traffic using West 79th St. and
Highway 5. In addition, the applicants have an opportunity to advertise on a monument sign
located on Lot 4 (Applebee's).
The sign ordinance establishes standards which permit business a reasonable and equitable
opportunity to advertise their name and service, while maintaining the aesthetic environment of the
City. Uncontrolled and unlimited signs detract from the enhanced architecture and design that the
city encourages, and in the long run may undermine economic value and growth. Further, the
safety of motorists and pedestrians is affected by the number, size, location, and appearance of
signs. Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and
service. Staff therefore recommends denial of the sign variance.
FINDINGS
The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre - existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The applicant has a reasonable use of the property with wall and monument
signs. Other businesses located along West 79th Street do not have more than one wall
sign per street frontage. If approved, the variance would deviate from pre - existing
standards in the Business Highway District.
L
t
L
Tires Plus Sign Variance
February 21, 1996
' Page 4
' b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
' Finding: The conditions upon which the petition for the variance is based are applicable to
other properties within the same zoning classification. A number of businesses along West
79th St. have only one street frontage and one wall sign.
C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of the variation appears to be based upon a desire to have additional
advertising that is visible from Market Blvd.
' d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship.
t
Finding: The alleged hardship is self - created as the applicant has a reasonable opportunity
to advertise with a wall sign on the south elevation and a monument sign.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public safety or
neighboring parcels. Whereas, the addition of one extra wall sign on this building may not
be detrimental to public safety; uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact public
safety and unduly distract motorists.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases
the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood. As stated above, uncontrolled and unlimited signs
adversely impact public safety and the aesthetic environment of the community.
Tires Plus Sign Variance
February 21, 1996
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies the request for Sign Permit Variance 496 -1 based on the findings
presented in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
variance.
2. Tires Plus has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with the wall
sign and monument sign.
3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated February 21, 1996
2. Application dated January 16, 1996
3. South elevation showing proposed signs
4. West elevation showing proposed sign
F
n
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Meyer: I'll second that.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Fmmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council deny the request for Sign Permit Valiance 996 -1 based on the findings presented in
the staff repoit and the following:
L The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
variance.
2. Tires Plus has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with the wall
sign and monument sign.
3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Aanenson: March 11th.
Mancino: When does this go in front of the City Council?
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 39.17 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS; SITE
PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO 74,077 SO FT AND A 92,770 SO FT OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND A VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON
PROPERTY ZONED IOP INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF DELL ROAD AND SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, FIRST
INDUSTRIAL, L.P., FIRST INDUSTRIAL CHANHASSEN POINTE BUSINESS CENTRE
Public Present:
Name Address
Greg Palmer
18766 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Mike Cleary
18612 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Scott Knutson
18744 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Phil Becker
18722 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Steve Anderson
18788 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
26
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
'I
Meyer: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the preliminary 'I
plat for Subdivision 496 -3, Slathar Addition.
Mancino: And do we need to state or articulate any reasons for the tabling?
Rask: No. I think it's pretty clear.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion of the motion?
Meyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table the pnelirninaiy plat for
Subdivision #96 -3, Slathar° Addition for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED ON 'I
PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF
HWY 5_, EAST OF MARKET BLVD ON WEST 79TH STREET, TIRES PLUS GROUPE,
INC. n
Public Present:
Name Address
dd >'ss
Jim Dimond 8609 Lyndale Avenue So., Bloomington
Ron Fiscus Yaggy, Colby Associates, Rochester, MN
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you John. Is the applicant here? I
Ron Fiscus: It's been a while. A bit of history on this. Originally Tires Plus had an option
on the parcel of property across... recommended Tires Plus. Tires Plus originally... piece of
property across West 79th Street from this site where we're currently going and elected to
move to another site on the encouragement of the city administrative staff. A couple of
reasons for that. One was that they, the site that the HRA owned in this location had a II
portion of wetlands on it. The site that Tires Plus had optioned had wetlands on it but had
19 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
7
some doable space. So as the HRA was looking at trying to put their development together
' here, they thought this would be an excellent opportunity to swap wetland for non - wetland.
A wetland mitigation site so on that, insistence from the HRA, Tires Plus said okay. This
seems like a reasonable approach so they gave up that site on the south side of 79th Street,
' which interestingly enough has 2 or 3 street frontages, and in that process it would have been
nice to be able to transfer those rights for signage on local frontages that come with all those
street frontages they would have had to this new site, but that wasn't possible. So we're faced
' with trying to find a way to fit into the downtown commercial district and the frankly
aggressive signage that is going on in many places in downtown and even very close to this
site. And as we talked with John about signage within the community we've found that there
' have been numerous other conditions where signs on multiple building faces have been
approved by one form or another. One of the facts that we're faced with here is that this is a
bit of an unusual configuration for a site. We're backing back into the site. The angular
streets in this location provide some interesting visual access to this. For example, Pauly runs
to the north of the site. It winds up along through and as you look at, the sense you have for
this property from Pauly Drive, it feels a lot like a double frontage lot. Not unlike the
' situation you have at Festival Foods where they have Highway 5 on one side, across the
railroad tracks but it feels very much like they have highway frontage and then have frontage
' on Market Square so they have signs on two of their faces. Even though they only have one
actual street frontage off of the Festival Foods property. The building feels a lot like a
planned unit development. It's kind of functioning that way. It has a street in here. By
' virtue of an access that's being installed to connect the Americana Bank with this
development, it's going to feel very much like a PUD that has kind of a corner situation. And
this looks and feels a lot like several other projects with Boston Market—with Premiere Video
where some private internal streets that provide access to internal lots are, from all
appearances, dealt with as public streets and people are allowed to count those as frontages so
for example, with Premiere Video you have signage on two of those building faces even
' though they only have ... one public street. In this case, and in other cases...John, apparently
the ... Boston Market and Perkins was dealt with as a planned unit development. And as that
was approved, building multiple signs on multiple building faces were approved as a part of
' that PUD. In this case, the public entity that is doing this development didn't provide that
opportunity as a part of the up front request of the Planning Commission and City Council
and the HRA as we were going through the subdivision process. So at this point we're forced
' to come back through a variance process to try and get that same approval that has been
granted to other developments in the downtown area. An interesting angle with 79th Street.
As you gain access to this property you have an opportunity for visual access through here,
' through here and then on Highway 5 as you look at the face of the building. As was said,
there were several building faces, signs on several of the building faces proposed initially
with the site development proposal. The owner, Tires Plus, would have preferred to have
' some ... pylon sign but recognize that that just wouldn't fit with the other sorts of things you're
21 11
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g �' ,
doing in this area of the downtown area. So they elected instead to do the sign on the
building. face and the peak that you had seen previously. It's a fixed sign. It doesn't provide
the opportunity to address some of the angular, visual access you have to the site as your... So
in this case it's felt that the angles, if we were able to put a sign on this face, which is the
second sign that's proposed, it would provide the opportunity to make use of those angular
vistas to the site and provide a better opportunity for building identification from those angles.
Interestingly enough, the building has a showroom out in front of it so it has actually three
faces on the showroom, not unlike Century Bank. Century Bank was allowed to put letters,
identification letters on the three faces of that turret ... front of their building. l have a couple
boards here ... I'll pass them around that show some of the other circumstances in the
community where signs on multiple building faces have been approved. Century Bank being
"
one of those. So we elected not to try to do it on the three faces of the showroom. We
elected instead to attempt to only get one additional sign face on the west end of the service
area. As you look at the staff report, there's several of the findings that I can agree with.
There were several that I want to take a bit of issue with. The first one has to do with undue
hardship and under hardship can mean that you are eliminated from making any reasonable
use of the property... But another aspect of undue hardship has to do with whether or not this
property is being treated similar to other properties within close proximity. And as we look
at that 500 foot radius around the Tires Plus property, there are certainly other uses, Wendy's
for example, within about that 500 foot range that have signs on more than one building face,
yet they only have one street frontage. The second aspect of the staff report findings talks
about the conditions that are applicable to other properties within the same zoning
"
classification. Well, that gets right back to those issues we just talked about where other
signs on multiple faces of buildings have been approved in the same zoning classification and
in very similar settings that we're talking about here. The third item has to do with self
I�
created hardship. In this case by agreeing to operate by those encouragements from the city
administrative staff, the planning staff, about trying to make things work with the larger
developments, where the city in effect has forced us into a position of. - The other two items
I'
in the staff report have to do with not being detrimental to public safety. Staff has found that
this isn't detrimental. We agree with that and that it will not impair adequate —or create
congestion in the street and we agree that this is ... two conditions. So bottom line is we're
II
asking that we be treated the same as other businesses in similar settings within the
community that have been allowed to do multiple faced signs. If this had been a private
PUD, the developer might have addressed that up front. In this case... variance approach.
I'
And yet we are in a project that looks and feels and smells very much like the same sorts of
PUD's that you've allowed that type of signage for. I think we are in a unique: situation.
We're on the back end of a project property. We don't have any direct adjacency to a street
so we're trying to provide some reasonable means of identification for the building in a way
that's going to be able to communicate to the public with these ... vistas the fact that this is a
Tires Plus building and just do a reasonable means of providing that identification. And we
I'
21 11
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
think we're being reasonable, we'd like to think we're being reasonable with the request. It's
' not as though we're asking for an 8 x 12 sign on a 60 foot pylon pole that's going to ... neon
Tires Plus. This is intended to be very tasteful. Small, 30 inch high letters in addition to the
basic sign of this building that it will be far less intrusive than a number of the other similar
' requests that have been approved recently. We are going to look and feel with this proposal
very much like a lot of the other commercial businesses in the downtown area that are just
trying to...
' Mancino: An questions at this time for th
Y q e applicant. Okay, thank you. This is a public
hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and second please.
' Farmakes: I believe e e Kate wanted to...
' Aanenson: I just wanted to shed some other light on some of the things that were said
tonight. I think we need to clarify a couple of issues. First of all, it could have been
' addressed under a PUD. There's certainly another approach, and that is during site plan
review, it's very common during site plan review to ask for variances such as Applebee's did
last week. If Tires Plus wanted a variance on the sign when they came in for site plan
review, it would have been very appropriate at that time to ask for one. So you don't have to
only do it during a PUD. There was certainly another mechanism, if they felt strongly, that
they needed a variance to make this happen. They could have approached it at that time. I
' just want to make sure that's clear. Their hands weren't tied. They could have asked for it at
that time. Secondly, some of the other frontage, double frontage signs are under the old sign
ordinance and as far as the pylon sign, that wouldn't have been permitted anyway so.
' Mancino: Market Square, most of the pictures of Market Square, that was a PUD that was
approved in 1989, prior to our current sign ordinance.
Aanenson: Correct.
' Mancino: So was Americana Bank was approved prior to our current sign ordinance. In fact
our current sign ordinance, we worked on many, many hours with, just for the commissioners
to know. I know that Jeff was in on this and we worked with the Chamber. We sat down
and had three 2 hour meetings with the business community as a planning commission and sat
with 3 or 4 members of the Chamber and went through our sign ordinance line by line and
talked about it and came to agreement on it and passed the sign ordinance then onto the City
' Council. And that was approximately a year ago?
Rask: Yeah, January of '95 so.
22
1
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: '95 so it is just newly, it has just newly been passed but, and it doesn't mean that
any ordinance is 100 %. You don't change it at all but it is a fairly current ordinance and I
think had the participation of the business community. Downtown business community at
that time of Chanhassen so, I'd just like to pass that on, �I
Aanenson: I dust want to make that clear that while the city did do the PUD, - there certainly
was an opportunity when they came in for site plan approval to ask for that at that time. I
mean you can certainly ask for a variance at any time but we felt like...
Mancino: Sure, it's a reasonable request and that's fine. May I have a motion to open the �'
public hearing please. And a second.
Far-makes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. The public hewing was 11 opened.
Mancino: Anyone else wishing to, or not, is anyone else wishing to address the sign
ordinance variance, excuse me, for Tires Plus? Seeing one, may I have a motion to close the
public hearing.
Ron Fiscus: We'd just like to offer one additional comment. At the time we ,applied for the
site plan approval, and the city's HRA was going through the subdivision platting process, as
was said, we did show multiple building signs on most of the building faces with signs on
them. At that time staff advised us that that was not an appropriate action to be included
within the PUD approval process or the site plan approval process. That we had to go
through a separate process, which is why we're back at this point... directions on what we
perceived to be the appropriate time.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the
public hearing and a second.
Fwmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public healing. The public hewing was closed.
Mancino: Comments. Questions from commissioners. Jeff.
Farmakes: Well we knew this was coming. I don't understand, I haven't understood this
development at all really. I mean the issue of putting Tires Plus in the middle of isolated
area. An automotive retail sort of isolated in the middle of nowhere surrounded by banking,
retail and restaurant and so on. As an industry, typically how they advertise and project
themselves usually is just a little more low brow. It usually doesn't fit in with some of the
other, i.e. Rapid Oil Change and some of the other automotive areas. We try to sort of keep
23 D
H
Planning Commission Meeting - Februa ry 21, 1996
the automotive grouped together. I'm not sure, some of you may not have been here when
' Goodyear was done and Abra or 10,000 Auto Parts and so on, on the other end of town down
there by the McDonalds. The way I look at this thing is, what's the practical advantage here
of placing Tires Plus on the area that faces the drive -thru and the parking lot of American
' Bank. And if you're looking for a site right from Market Boulevard, signage of that size, and
length from Market Boulevard to the building from, looking from west to east, is very little.
It's cut off by the bank where it's going down. Going to the north down at Market Boulevard.
By the time you get to the railroad tracks, you're not going to be turning around to look at the
sign. And if you're looking at the junction of Market Boulevard and Highway 5 ... the front
' sign just as much as you would ... the side sign. So in looking at like a Byerly's, we were
dealing with this with Byerly's saying, when you're talking about the side signs. It's the same
situation. It's dust a matter of 5 degrees this way or 5 degrees that way. You're going to see
both of the same signs and the issue that we dealt with on the signage and the reason that we
came up with this restriction in the first place is, to reduce needless duplication of signage
and often when you're in retail, the more signs the better. You can't have too many. And
' when we were dealing with issues of reasonable access to the public to identify your business,
it should be reasonable. There should be reasonable access. I don't see where in looking at a
variance here that making an exception to the rule on this issue is going to serve any real
purpose. And visibility from that junction and that store from the front signage, I don't know
how many people come through on TH 5 but it must be 50,000 a day at least and at that stop
light, I always seem to hit it. So you're going to see these stores. The argument that's made
' that every signage application in Chanhassen in the last 20 years, that any new applicant
should be allowed equal access to that type of display, obviously doesn't hold water because
you're going to have rules change as the years go by. If Chan Theaters was done at a
' different time in the development of the city then, another example Wendy's. But Wendy's
has thru streets going through it and parking areas so you do have, it's not dust parking areas.
There's a thru street going through. And again, if it's a PUD and so on, as to how they
' handled these issues and when they bring them up, there may be something about a lot that
lends itself to ... like it does a residential house or anything else. Where somebody's severely
restricted and you use common sense. I don't see that here. I don't see where putting that
' sign on the sides is going to make or break that development. The other issue, as I
understand it on the issue, I think you referred to it as product advertisement. Where does
that stand? We really don't address the issue. That's this low warehouse prices, fast world
class service.
Rask: Yeah, they are allowed 15% of the sign area can be in product advertisement and it's
' provided for in the ordinance. And when we calculated the square foot, they were allowed
30, I believe 33 square feet and this actually breaks down to 32 so they are working within
' the sign ordinance for that first part. If you recall, when it originally came in they had
Goodyear, BF Goodrich and all of those and they were told they'd have to drop that because
24
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
they were exceeding that 15 %. So they have worked within the sign ordinance on the south
elevation of the building.
Farmakes: The issue of where the building goes, if it was supposed to go in another location
at a different time, obviously that's not an argument either to change our ordinance. I don't
see a compelling reason that again the sign facing to the west is going to make or break the
identity of that building and I would recommend or go with the staffs recommendation on it.
Mancino: Thank you. Don.
Mehl: Yeah, I think the location of the building set back the way it is, is just going to offer
the broadest angle of viewing on the front of that building. You're going to see it from all of
79th Street and a large distance along Highway 5. I guess I support the staffs
recommendation also.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I support staffs recommendation.
Mancino: Mike.
I�
Meyer: Nothing additional.
Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: Nothing additional.
Mancino: I really don't have anything additional either. I do know that we have had some
sign variances come up in front of the Planning Commission lately and I just relieve that we
treat every business owner fairly and according to the ordinance. And so I would deny this
variance. I don't see the hardship. And we have done that in the last 2 or 3 months and I
want to make sure that it's a level playing field and that we apply the ordinances fairly to
everyone. With that, do I have a motion?
Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council deny the request for Sign Permit Variance #96 -1 based on the findings presented in
I�
the staff report and the following 1 through 5 in the report dated February 21, 1996.
Mancino: Is there a second? 1'
25 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
I APPLICANT: Tires Plus Groupe, Ltd. OWNER: Chanhassen Housing & Rehabilitatio
Authority
I ADDRESS: - 701 Ladybird Lane ADDRESS: City of Chanhassen
I Burnsville, MN 55337
TELEPHONE (Daytime) ( 612) 894 -2700 TELEPHONE: ( 612) 937 -1900
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.
X Variance
3.
Interim Use Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Non - conforming Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP /SPR/VACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10.
Subdivision
TOTAL FEE $ 100.00
7
J
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
' 8W' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME Tires Plus - Chanhassen
LOCATION Crossroads Plaza Addition
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached �I
�I
PRESENT ZONING Highway Commercial
REQUESTED ZONING No change requested
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Highway Commercial
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION No change requested �I
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To obtain permission to increase signage to Tires Plus facility.
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
Planning Department to determine the specif ic ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your 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.
1 also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
Signature of Applicant Date
IV�
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on 4� Fee Paid//) Receipt No. ti , "?Z
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malted to the applicant's address.
F,
i
0
LAND DESCRIPTION
That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Second Addition according to the plat thereof on
Me in the County Recorder's office, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence easterly on an assumed
azimuth from north of 79 degrees 31 minutes 20 seconds along the north line of
said Lot 2 distance of 230.00 feet; thence southerly 169 degrees 04 minutes 54
seconds azimuth 133.00 feet; thence westerly 259 degrees 31 minutes 20 seconds
azimuth 230.00 feet to the westerly line of Lot 2; thence northelry 169 degrees 04
minutes 54 seconds azimuth along said westerly line 133.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
Said tract contains 0.70 acres.
W EST ELEVATION
W- 5"
T � ZJ
RACEWAY SECTION
1) SO ALUMINUM BACK
2) 040 DARK BRONZE ALUM RETURN
J) GOLD TRIM CAP
4) RED ACRYLIC 'ACE
5) P.ED NEON TUBE
61 METAL RACEWAY PAINTED TO MATCH BLDG.
T) 120 VOLT SERVICE
8) 88 MA TRANSFORMER
^ I
� FONTS
USED;
201ECI
Ir
'
�NI A � I
CUSTOMER APPROVAL 6 DATE
THIS D- 14WING IS THE PROrERIY OF
�CNESie Coe
19510N DATES:
eCCITE57ER
STATE
J GnF,iZ
pie - -o
FONTS SENT: YES N/A
325 MINNESOTA AVE. N. I6I0 E. C
! CLIFF RD.
ORONOCO, MN 55960 F BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
,Z'7/01,
DATE
DRAWN RY
��
PHONE/ 507.367 2631 PHONE / 612. 8942421
_ _ ___
—
MITIIJE50TA
GRAPHICS SENT: DISK ORIGINAL N/A
FAX/ 507.367.2633 schad siqns FAX/ 612. 894.2748
m m m= m m m == m i i = m m m m
INDIVIDUAL LIT LETTER SECTION
N s
i 0
Q / 8
(02 0
1) .050 ALUMINUM BACK
2).040 DK. BRONZE RETURN
3) GOLD TRIM CAP
4) YELLOW ACRYLIC FACE
5) WHITE NEON TUBE
6) PK HOUSING
7) METAL CONDUIT W/ GTO WIRE
8) TRANSFORMER BOX
9) 30 MA TRANSFORMER
10) 120 VOLT SERVICE
SOUTH ELEVATI
` \�� ,�8- =,-o� 12I���
FONTS USED:
IIECT
CITY
SALESREP.
SCALE
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF
H5TP.2COR
ISION DATES:
RGCHESTER
STATE
J GAPTZ
DATE
I /' = p. p-
U4" = I' - O "
DRAWN BY
FONTS SEW YES NIA
CUSTOMER APPROVAL 6 DATE
325 MINNESOTA AVE. N.�
ORONOCO, MN 55960
1610 E. CLIFF RD.
BURNSVI LLE, AN 55337
7/or
MINNIE50TA
12/27/95
M THOMAS
GRAPHICS SENT: DISK ORIGINAL N/A
-- - - - "'- --
PHONE / 507. 367 2631
FAX/ 507,367-26J3
PHONE /612. 894.2421
-- —
schadrtracq signs
FAX /612. 894.2748
SOUTH ELEVATI
` \�� ,�8- =,-o� 12I���