9. City Code Amendment: Section 20 Re Signs.I
CITY OF G
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 * CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
40 61 P M, Awgtrvwv
MEMORANDUM k��are:f„ ,Lt
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Date subm d iii to _S1 04
' FROM: John Rask, Planner I - _.,
�1]aEe 5ubmiG, cil
DATE: March 19, 1996 -- -
' SUBJ: Sign Ordinance Glitch Amendments
SUMMARY
' On January 9, 1996, the City Council approved :a number of amendments to the Sign
Ordinance. After a year of implementing and enforcing the revised sign ordinance, several
glitches have appeared. Oftentimes people request or pickup a copy of the sign ordinance
i without speaking to staff; therefore, it is important to have an ordinance that reads clearly and is
easy to interpret. The recommended amendments should clarify these problem areas.
' The revised sign ordinance was adopted a little over a year ago. Whereas, there has been a few
problems and glitches, staff is of the opinion that the ordinance has provided adequate standards
for signage within the community. Sign ordinances are difficult to create and even more difficult
to enforce; however, sign ordinances are one of the most important tools in protecting and
enhancing the aesthetic:.envi.ronment qfa co ; Civic..beauty and traffic safety can be
seriously impaired by uncontrolled or unlimited signage. The City is lucky to have businesses
and developers who generally make use of higher quality signs and advertising devices.
However, competition among competing businesses can be great, creating a,desire to have
' additional signage. The sign ordinance appears to have created a level playing field and 11
opportunity for all businesses to advertise within the community.
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On March 6, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed
ordinance amendments. The Commission recommended approval of the amendments by a
unanimous vote. A comment was made concerning the lighting of entry monument signs located
in residential neighborhoods. Whereas, the ordinance does not prohibit the lighting of these
Don Ashworth
March 19, 1996
Page 2
signs, there have been illuminated signs which emit a significant amount of light. Staff is of the
opinion that this issue can be addressed at the time of subdivision approval or sign permit U
approval. Provision exist within the city code for illuminated signs which obstruct the view of
traffic or creates a nuisance to adjoining properties.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends the following amendments:
Section 20- 1255(9)a. Temporary development project advertising signs, currently reads, "Not
a
more than two (2) nonilluminated signs or not more than one (1) nonilluminated sign per street
frontage shall be allowed per project."
"Not
a
Amend Section 20- 1255(9)a. Temporary development project advertising signs, to read:
more than one (1) nonilluminated sign per street frontage, provided that the total number of signs
do not exceed two (2) per project."
Comment: This provision has created confusion over how many signs are allowed. No permits
are required for Temporary Development Project Advertising Signs. The proposed amendment
should clarify this section of the ordinance.
Amend Section 20- 1301(2) Area identificationlentrance signs to read: Only one (1) monument
sign may be erected at the main entrance(s) era let, which shall not exceed twenty -four (24)
square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet high. Any such sign or monument
shall be designed so that it is maintenance fee. The adjacent property owner or a homeowners
association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/entrance sign. Such sign
shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and
a
shall be securely anchored to the ground."
Comment: The title of this section, area identification/ signs, should lead one to believe
that the intent is to locate the sign at the entrance to a subdivision. However, in the past we have
received requests to locate signs in areas away from the entrance, and to locate more than one
sign at the entrance. The amendment should clarify this section.
Amend Section 20 -1, Definitions. Sign, ground low profile business, means a business sign
affixed directly to the ground, � t he sign display a r e a st an`"ng not greater- th two (2) fee
above the ^ oun which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or product --
offered on the premises.
Comment: The height requirement is in conflict with the requirements for the specific zoning
districts in which ground low profile business signs are permitted. The revised sign ordinance I
I I *
I Don Ashworth
March 19, 1996
' Page 3
provides height and sign area requirements for ground low profile signs in each zoning district.
Therefore, this part of the definition is not needed and is in conflict with other sections of the
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the following amendments as described in the staff report dated
March 19, 1996 and shown in Attachment # 1:
1. Amend Section 20- 1255(9)a. to read: "Not more than one (1) nonilluminated sign per street
frontage, provided that the total number of signs do not exceed two (2) per project.
2. Amend Section 20- 1301(2) Area identification/entrance signs to read: Only one (1)
monument sign may be erected at the primary entrance(s), which shall not exceed twenty -
four (24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet high. Any such sign
or monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance fee. The adjacent property owner or
a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/entrance
sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street
maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground."
3. Section 20 -1, Definitions. Sign, ground low profile business, means a business sign affixed
directly to the ground, which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or product
offered on the premises.
gAplanI r \signrev.doc
CITY OF C14AN14ASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
Section 1. Section 20 -1255 (9)a. is hereby amended to read as follows:
I
L
a. Not more than one (1) nonilluminated sign per street frontage, provided that the
total number of signs do not exceed two (2) per project. I
Section 2. Section 20- 1301(2) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Area identification/entrance signs: Only one (1) monument sign may be erected
at the main entrance(s) on a let which shall not exceed twenty -four (24) square
feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet high. Any such sign or
monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance fee. The adjacent property
owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the
identification/entrance sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with
traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to
the ground.
Section 3. Section 20 -1, Definitions, Sign, ground low profile business is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sign, ground low profile business, means a business sign affixed directly to the ground,
which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or product offered on the premises.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996, by the City
Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
Comud moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hewing.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Don.
Mehl: I really don't have any comments.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: None.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: Nothing.
Mancino: Mike. Ladd. Craig. I don't either. May I have a motion please.
Mehl: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt the amendments as described in the staff report dated February 28, 1996.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Meyer: I'll second that.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Mehl moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council adopt the following amendments to the Shoneland Oixlinance, Section 20 -482,
described in the staff nepoit dated Februmy 28, 1996. All voted in favor- and the motion
cw'tied unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20- 1255(9) TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT SIGNS;
SECTION 20- 1301(2) AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, AND SECTION 20 -1
DEFINITIONS.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item
Mancino: Any questions of staff at this time?
M
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
Peterson: At one of the last meetings we talked about conceivably a glitch in the sign
ordinance where you could have a stand alone, monument, or whatever 20 feel' or so high that
had signs and I think one of the banks has it. It's got a sign for Century Bank or whatever it
is that's got the sign on all four sides or three sides.
Aanenson: Yeah, that discussion came out regarding the interpretation of a canopy. I guess
staff felt, if someone was willing to spend that much architecturally, another person who had
a canopy is Chanhassen State Bank. There isn't too many of those. It is an architectural
feature that adds a lot to the building. So that decision was made and ... if we got those again,
we'd leave it up to the Planning Commission to make that interpretation. I'd suggest that you
may want to get the... answer but I think when we do those sign packages as a part of the site
plan review, I think that would be good for you to make that interpretation. I1' you feel that's
an architectural feature, that's a canopy and it does specifically state in the ordinance a canopy
feature could have a sign. But we would think a better way to go is let the Planning
Commission make that interpretation ... You're right, we did talk about it.
Peterson: Wouldn't it be easier though for us to put it in here? That a canopy can only have
one or two signs on it. So we have something to fall back on or is it just?
Rask: Yeah, I don't really recall how, the ordinance allows canopy signs right now and I
don't recall what our intent was when we adopted it. We do provide a diagram of that in our
definition section which shows a marquee with signs on it.
Farmakes: I believe originally when they discussed that, the canopy wasn't necessarily a four
sided piece. A structure. So then how it, when we're talking about two sides Dr one side, it
potentially could be an octagon. The question is what faces what frontage road? It may face
two frontage roads at the same time.
Rask: In the case of Century Bank, and this was put in, it was something that was discussed
when it went in front of the Council. They were asking for it. They showed signs on that
marquee feature and the interpretation given there was they took, they had one frontage so
they took the wall area and we determined how much signage they could put on the wall area
and they were limited to that amount on the canopy. II
Mancino: On the whole canopy.
Aanenson: Right. a
41 1
Planning -
g Co mission Meeting March 6, 1996
1 Rask: So they could not, and it came out to 120 square feet maybe. I'm not sure of that
figure but the Council said okay, you can use that amount of sign area and put it on the
marquee as you see fit basically was how that all panned out.
Aanenson: So they didn't get additional signs. They just put it on a place where it maybe
was more visible. So and that goes back to what I said before. I think that would be an
' interpretation for you to look at and then their commitment on it as part of the sign package...
Farmakes: I think that should be a concern because if they have, sort of a slap on arbitrarily.
' Something like that just to get that.
Aanenson: Exactly Jeff, that's why I'm saying I think you should make that decision or
' recommendation, whether or not you feel that's an integral part of the architecture because
some people ... to get what they want.
' Mancino: That's a good point. Premiere Video also has a side sign that's not...
Rask: Yeah, that was granted as a variance with the Byerly's site plan. Actually I think they
' came to in a separate sign plan package but they did get a variance for that. It's going to be
Hollywood Video too in a few days so, but their store can have two signs.
Mancino: I have a quick question. The one thing that I'm noticing on some of these main
entrance signs, and it's the one on Lake Lucy which is Pointe Lake Lucy. The amount of
light shining on that. It's a limestone wall and it has lettering and it's very well done but
' whereas the Lundgren development to the east of that has just one spotlight on their's, this has
two and it's just, we may want to look at wattage at some point on these entrance signs. It's
not like there's a big skylight in the sky yet but the wattage is twice, if not 3 or 4 times what
' it is in other entrances. So you may want to just take a look at that... Can I have a motion to
open this for a public hearing please.
' Far moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing.
' Mancino: Seeing no one here, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing.
' Mancino: Thank you. Don. Comments.
I Mehl: No, I don't have anything at this time.
r
42
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: I'll go with the staff recommendation on this.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: No comments.
Mancino: Mike. Ladd. Craig.
Peterson: No comments.
Mancino: I don't either. May I have a motion please?
Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt the following amendments as described in the staff report dated February 28, 1996,
items 1 through 3.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? a
Meyer: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the following amendments as described in the staff report dated February 28,
1996:
1. Amend Section 20- 1255(9)(a) to read, "Not more than one (1) non - illuminated sign per
street frontage, provided that the total number of signs do not exceed two (2) per
project.
2. Amend Section 20- 1301(2) Area identification /entrance signs to read: Only one (1)
monument sign may be erected at the primary entrance(s), which shall not exceed
twenty -four (24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet high.
Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance free. The
adjacent property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible: for
maintenance of the identification /entrance sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to
conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely
a
anchored to the ground.
43
1�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
3. Section 20 -1, Definitions. Signs, ground low profile business, means a business sign
affixed directly to the ground, which directs attention to a business, commodity, service
or product offered on the premises.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: Maybe I'll just take the seminary site. I just put this, included it for your
' edification. The Building Official, Steve Kirchman, through another matter was apprised of a
situation. He did go down. There's two homes on the seminary site and the one that they are
trying to get, or to vacate, is draining right into the creek there and it's pretty hazardous so
' they are working with the owners of the property to get it repaired or vacate the property so
we appreciate his efforts in going down and investigating that. There was another issue as far
as ... extra measure to check on that issue and we appreciate that. Just as a side bar, we did
' have a meeting with the DNR and watershed districts on the seminary site and we're moving
forward. It's part of our plan in that 1995 study area, so some exciting things are happening
there. Hoping to get the wetlands delineated there. Hopefully they'll be coming forward with
' a proposal on that property which I think is probably one of the best uses for the property.
So I just wanted to let you know that hopefully we're stopping a problem down there. It's
very critical. If you had an opportunity to see the article in the Star and Tribune about the
seminary site. It's probably one of the most unique sites in the state as far as the type of
vegetation. The DNR is very interested in that property. Preserving it so that's exciting.
' Mancino: Is that in the final stages?
Aanenson: It's pretty close. There's also somebody else looking at which may be a
compatible use too so, I think either one. Either way we're going to have a use that's going
to be low intensity on that property and hopefully get closure on it. The concern that we
' have right now is that, in those outside the MUSA, there's enough motivation for people to
take that density and cluster it to try to do large lot developments ... destroy the integrity of the
property. So that's all I had.
' Mancino: May I have a so noting of the Minutes please.
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Peterson moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated February 12, 1996 as presented.
L
!Ell