Loading...
7. Gary Brown: Sign Variance.G' CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: 1/3/95 CC DATE: 1/23/95 CASE M #95 -12 By: Rask:v H ' Z Q U IJ a � L � r �a 1~ 0 W 1 c' PROPOSAL: Variance requests from Section 20 -1267 requiring individual dimensional letters, and Section 20- 13 -3(3) to allow a second wall mounted sign on the south elevation. LOCATION: 7901 Great Plains Blvd. (West 79th Street and Great Plains Blvd. - Lot 1, Gateway First Addition) Add By City AdminEsf wr Endors APPLICANT: Gary Brown Moditfe 1831 Koehnen Circle Rejected___......_.... Excelsior, MN 55331 _ D ' -- '- (612) 934 -2155 Late SuhmNmd to Commission to i:8 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District ACREAGE: Approximately 0.4 acres (20,280 square feet) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - OI, Office & Institutional, West 79th Street and Railroad ROW S - BH, Brown's Amoco E - BH, Rapid Oil Change W - BH, Great Plains Blvd. and Holiday Station WATER AND SEWER: Available to site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has been developed with two car wash buildings. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial 1 Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Page 2 I PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On January 3, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed sign variance. The Commission concurred with the findings presented in the staff report and voted by an unanimous vote to deny the sign variance. The applicant was not in attendance to discuss the ' request. The Commission indicated that they would like to see signage which conforms to the ordinance, and that the directional signage "entrance" and "exit" should not be located above the garage doors. This information could be more appropriately located on directional signs or on the I building at eye - level. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ' Section 20 -1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc. "All permanent signs shall be designed ' and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture... Signage shall use individual dimensional letters and logos, be back lit if a wall sign is illuminated, and be architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi- ' tenant building. Company symbols, display messages, pictorial presentations, illustrations, or decorations shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. Section 20- 1303(3) Wall business sign. "Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business 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 September 25, 1995, the City Council approved conditional use permit 95 -3 to allow two ' principal buildings on one lot and site plan 95 -13 for a 1,255 square foot drive through car wash subject to seven conditions. Condition 5 stated, "The applicant shall apply for separate sign permits ' for any signage on site except for traffic circulation signs. Signage shall comply with the city's sign ordinance." On page three of the staff report SP -13, CUP 95 -3, staff indicated that signage is permitted on street frontage (West 79th Street) only. ' On December 1, 1995, staff made a final inspection of the car wash building before issuing the certificate of occupancy (CO). Upon review of the building, staff observed two illegal signs on the ' north and south elevations. No permits were obtained for the signage. Staff requested that the signs be removed or that the applicant apply for a variance prior to issuance of the CO. Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Page 3 , ANALYSIS Staff recommends denial of the variance as the applicant has not identified a hardship that would , warrant the granting of a variance. Neither the size, shape, nor topography of the lot prevent the ' placement of a sign which meets ordinance requirements. Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise the business name and service with one wall sign. The applicant was notified that a sign permit would be required prior to installing a wall sign ' (see letter to Mr. Gary Brown dated October 2, 1995). Further, the staff report clearly stated that signage would be permitted on street frontage (West 79th Street) only. The existing signs on the north and south elevations are in violation of the sign ordinance. City , code requires individual dimensional letters for wall signs, and permits signage on street frontage only. To comply with city code, the applicant would have to remove both signs. A sign consisting ' of individual dimensional letters may be erected on the north elevation. Based on ordinance requirements, a wall sign not exceeding seventy -five (75) square feet would be permitted. The sign may contain the wording, Car Wash and Entrance. "Entrance" would be considered a display ' message and may not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. In addition, directional signs not exceeding four square feet or five feet in height could be installed on the premises identifying the entrance and exit along with any other pertinent directional information. ' The purpose and intent of the sign ordinance is to establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service while promoting public ' safety and enhancing the image of the community. In addition, the ordinance provides standards to ensure that signage is an integral component of the building's architecture. Granting variances for , an additional wall sign and for signage which does not meet minimum design standards would set a precedent that deviates from other signage in the commercial district. FINDINGS , The Planning Commission shall not recommend and 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 opportunity to advertise the business name and ' service with a wall sign on the north elevation. L 1 I� Brown Sign Variance January 3, 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 variance is based are applicable to other properties with the BH, Business Highway District. 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 increase the value of the parcel. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is self - created as the applicant erected the signs without first obtaining a permit. I 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 variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements. However, permanent signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship to, the image of the community. ' 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 significantly impair light and air to adjacent property. Whereas, an additional sign on this building alone may not increase congestion of ' public streets or endanger public safety, uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact public safety and the image and aesthetics of the community. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council denies the request for sign variance #95 -12 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. Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Page 5 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with a wall sign. 3. The variance request is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance." ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated January 3, 1996 2. Application dated December 1, 1995 3. Sign Permit Application 4. Building Elevations 5. Memorandum to Bob Reid, Building Inspector dated December 1, 1995 6. Letter to Mr. Gary Brown dated October 2, 1995 7. Page 3 of staff report for Brown's Car Wash J Planning Commission ssron Meeting - January 3, 1996 ' renewal application will be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. ' 9. One wall sign not to exceed ninety (90) square feet, and one monument sign not exceeding twenty -four (24) square feet in size or eight (8) feet in height shall be permitted on the premises. The Council may further restrict the size and location of signs if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the comprehensive plan. 1 1 � LL All voted in favor and the motion cwiied unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 20 -267, REQUHUNG INDIVIDUAL DIMENSIONAL LETTERS AND TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED AT 7901 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. , GARY BROWN. Farmakes: I have a conflict on this issue so I'm going to turn this over to Ladd to act as Chairman. Farmakes left the room at this time. John Rask presented the staff repoit on this item. Conrad: Are there any questions of staff? Public hearing. Let the applicant come forward or a representative. I don't see Gary here. He's a chicken huh. Where's Gary? Any other public comments on this issue? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hewing. The public hewing was closed. Conrad: Comments from the commission. I'm not going to go around. Any comments in general on the staff report. Mehl: I assume the reason the applicant put the, I went out there and I kind of looked at both ends of the building and if there were, I know if there were a sign just on the north end of the building, the only way you're going to see it is if you're southbound on Great Plains Boulevard. If you're in the area of Highway 5 or northbound off of TH 5 onto Great Plains, you wouldn't know that that's a car wash building unless the door opened and a dripping car was coming out. But on the other hand it's going to be, it's probably just going to be local people that are going to use it ... whole lot of traffic off of Highway 5. I guess I don't see a problem with the... Conrad: But hearing northbound, which is permitted if it's done properly. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: Exactly. Conrad: Even though it says entrance? Rask: We allowed that display message. I guess what we were proposing is as long as he's got reduced signs to pull off the entrance. He could do, put it small and say entrance or exit or whatever it is. Conrad: This is what he should do. Rask: Yeah, so we're suggesting he pulls it out and do some more appropriate directional signage. Conrad: Yeah. What's the sign. Aanenson: Yeah, at eye level. Conrad: Bob, anything? Craig? Anything? I sure think the staff report's appropriate right now. I think Gary should come in and talk to us if he has a difference of opinion but is there a motion? Peterson: I recommend the Planning Commission deny the request for the sign variance #95- 12 based upon the findings in the staff report... Conrad: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Peterson moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request foi• sign valiance 495 -12 based on the findings presented in the staff repoit and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with a wall sign. i, 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 3 1996 g rS' , 3. The variance request is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. ' All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. y Farmakes returned at this time. ' PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOWIJFILLY'S AND A PORTION OF THE FRONTIER BUILDING INTO AN ENTERTAINMENT ' CENTER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW WALL PROJECTING SIGNS IN AN AREA ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER LOTUS REALTY. I � Public Present: ' Name Add»ess Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Karen & Robert R. Copeland 14 Cooper Avenue, Edina Truman Howell 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Sharmin Al -Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Anybody have any questions of staff? Okay, ones from the applicant. ' Vernelle Clayton: Good evening. My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chanhassen. I'm very happy to be here to talk with you about this proposal... I think that from the reaction we've been getting from folks that have seen this proposed plan ' in our office ... As many of you know, although some of you are new, we did sort of a show and tell on a preliminary basis in ... August perhaps. Although perhaps a little bit earlier. The Planning Commission... to show you what we had in mind to do with this property ... we then ' went back to the drawing board and more importantly went to the HRA with a similar plan, with the same plan and because there are three... approval and we have spent some time now working with builders and ... set a plans that are somewhat the same but ... and easier to understand. Just briefly for those of you that are new and haven't seen that plan, it was... number of years of planning by a number of folks, including the city, for a number of proposals to use that property. And when it became apparent that the city was not going to develop it as either a rec center or community center or conference center, we got together 49 CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ Temporary Sales Permit 690 COULTER DRIVE Vacation of ROW /Easements CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Variance (612) 937 -1900 , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION _ Zoning Appeal APPLICANT: 4 :4 , Le ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Daytime) �� OWNER: I ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW /Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non - conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost ** ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. I L PROJECT NAME LOCATION Q� [�;it .� ra? A �ia�.�c� ,�l s_,o� ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' TOTAL ACREAGE - 3 WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING ' REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 7 2 l / 4 /"ra Gi.�� h y 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 specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ' A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the 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. ' I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension wrr ev opment review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions roved byfe- applicant. Date / -Z- 5;l Date I Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 11 N w� Pemiit # Receipt # Permit Fee Date: Site Address: 204(-- 0 z Zoning District: Owner. /t Phone: Address: C? Applicant: Phone: Address: Contractor. �i q Phone: ................... ................... .:::;:: ................ X ......... ......... . ............. ............ ... ... ......... ......... . .... ....... .. ...... ........... ........... Z . .... .... ...... ............. IX.X. .... .. ....... . ........ .. . .... . . .... . ....... . .......... ............ ........... I . ...... .. .... . .... ........ .... . ......... ........... . ........... ........ JIUT .. h. d: X ........... . .... . ........ td X, .......... ........... IN X:- . ...... ... . ....... .......... . ..... . .... . ............. ................. . ........... Do 4- Q4.o.. .., .b .. .♦,'—Jjmxcuy vlr"LJL Size of Sign: Length ft. Width If a Wall Sign, provide the following: Wall area in sq. ft. ft. — lul VLII /-/- LV -/-/ Height `� ft. Total Area -2 y sq. ft. Percentage of Wall Coverage by sign �6�. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Bob Reid, Building Inspector FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: December 1, 1995 SUBJ: Brown's Car Wash, 7901 Great Plains Boulevard The Planning Department has the following conditions that need to be met to permit building final: 1. The city will retain the applicant's security escrow in the amount of $1,500.00 to assure landscape installation and boulevard maintenance. Site landscaping shall be installed in the spring of 1996. 2. The applicant must install site traffic control signage. 3. Applicant has installed illegal signage on the building without permits. This signage must be removed or a variance application submitted to the city. A sign permit must also be submitted to the city. Attached is a copy of the conditions of site plan approval. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 141. I'II 1 MEMORANDUM n October 2, 1995 Mr. Gary Brown 1831 Koehnen Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to formally notify you that on September 25, 1995, the. City Council approved conditional use permit 95 -3 to allow two principal buildings on one lot and site plan 95 -13, prepared by Peter Curtis Architect dated June 28, 1995, revised September 21, 1995, and grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates dated August, 1995 and stamped received August 25, 1995, for a 1,255 square foot drive through car wash on property zoned Highway Business district subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Erosion control fence shall be installed prior to any site grading along the southerly property line and maintained until all disturbed areas have been revegetated or paved. 2. The drive aisles shall be increased to 16 feet wide face to face and another drive aisle shall be looped back to the east and north to West 79th Street to improve traffic circulation.. The applicant shall install, "Do ,Not Enter" signs at the looped drive (northeast) entrance and to prohibit westbound traffic south of the proposed car wash. 3. The applicant shall utilize the existing 6 -inch water lead from West 79th Street versus ' tapping the existing 8 -inch water main in West 79th Street. 4. The 4pplicant shall be responsible for relocation of any landscaping materials along West 79th Street in conflict with the site improv�ements. ' t\ 5. The applicant shall apply for separate sign permits for any signage on site except for traffic circulation sign. Signage shall comply with the city's sign ordinance. 6. Two of the red maples shall be relocated to the western side of the property. Mr. Gary Brown October 2, 1995 Page 2 7. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. Enclosed is your copy of the site plan/conditional use permit agreement for your records. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert Generous, AICP Planner II c: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer Steve Kirchman, Building Official Brown's Car Wash September 6, 1995 Update September 20, 1995 Page 3 t GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE HIGHWAY 5 STANDARDS This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC -1 District. The project must comply with the architectural design standards within the district, the intent of which is to attain high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the greatest extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting, texture, colors, architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must contain one or ' more pitched roof elements; must create a unified sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must provide safe and adequate access and internal 1 circulation; and must provide adequate separation from adjacent properties. Staff believes that this development has met the intent of the ordinance based on the proposed design and the conditions of approval contained in this staff report. ACCESS The proposed site is to be accessed from the existing car wash facility located on the corner of Great Plains Boulevard and West 79th Street. The proposed drive aisle is approximately 9 feet wide and the radius is too tight for passenger -type vehicles to easily maneuver. The drive aisle should be a minimum width of 16 feet face to face which will allow for passenger vehicles and truck utility vehicles to maneuver the site. Staff has attached a copy of a revised driveway layout 1 (Attachment #1). The same holds true for the access leaving the proposed car wash building. The drive aisle is currently proposed at 9 feet wide and the turning radius would be too tight for passenger -type vehicles. Traffic circulation through the site needs further modifications. The current proposal is to route traffic back through the existing car wash out onto Great Plains Boulevard. Great Plains ' Boulevard restricts traffic movements to a right turn only which then would require a U -turn at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and West 79th Street. Staff recommends that another access be routed to the east and north of the proposed car wash building back out to West 79th Street. This drive aisle should be a minimum of 16 feet wide face to face. LIGHTING /SIGNAGE The applicant has not provided lighting or signage details. Building signage is permitted on street frontage (West 79th Street) only. Any signage, with the exception of directional and traffic circulation signage, would require a separate permit.