Loading...
5. Gary Brown: Sign Variance.CITY OF Le CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 1/3/96 CC DATE: 1/12/96 CASE #: #95 -12 Sign By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT iQ J � Q k 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) APPLICANT: Gary Brown 1831 Koehnen Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 934 -2155 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District i a !o Uj 1� r 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 t fl Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Updated February 7, 1996 Page 2 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE The City Council reviewed the variance request on January 22, 1996, and tabled action to allow additional time to consider other alternatives. One alternative recommended by the Council was to have the applicant consider combining the Amoco property with the car wash parcel to provide "frontage" on Highway 5. This would allow a second wall mounted sign on the south elevation; however, a variance would still be required from the ordinance provision which requires individual dimensional letters for wall mounted signs. The design and construction standards are an essential component of the sign ordinance. The intent of this provision is to provide a uniform design for signage throughout the city by providing a common element among all signs. Colors, style, materials, and design are not regulated by the sign ordinance. It is the use of individual letters which provides the common element and uniformity. The new car wash building currently sits on the same lot as the existing self serve car wash. A conditional use permit was obtained to locate two structures on a single lot. This lot has frontage on West 79th St. and Great Plains Blvd. The sign ordinance could be interpreted to permit signage on the north and west elevations of the new building, West 79th St. and Great Plains Blvd., respectively. The west elevation is not readily visible from adjacent roadways and would provide little benefit for advertisement purposes. Accordingly, signage was approved (Site Plan #95 -13) for the north elevation only. If Council concurs with this interpretation of two street frontages, a variance for a second wall sign on the south elevation could be justified on this basis. (The applicant could have two wall signs, but a variance would be required to locate the sign on an elevation which does not have street frontage.) However, staff finds no hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance to allow signs which do not conform to the minimum design standards of the sign ordinance. Staff recommends denial of the sign variance to permit the existing painted signs. The Council may wish to consider a variance to permit a wall sign on the south elevation based on the fact that the lot has frontage on two public streets. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE 1 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 Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Updated February 7, 1996 Page 3 garage doors. This information could be more appropriately located on directional signs or on the 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. ANAT.VCiC Staff reconunends 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 1 ,J U LI Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Updated February 7, 1996 Page 4 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. I 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 j 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. ' b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to p p pp g Y other property within the same zoning classification. 1 Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Updated February 7, 1996 Page 5 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. 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 995 -12 based on the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1 1 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. I 1 Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Updated February 7, 1996 Page 6 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with a wall sign. 1 3. The variance request is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance." 1 1 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council minutes dated January 22, 1996 2. Planning Commission minutes dated January 3, 1996 3. Application dated December 1, 1995 4. Sign Permit Application 5. Building Elevations 6. Memorandum to Bob Reid, Building Inspector dated December 1, 1995 7. Letter to Mr. Gary Brown dated October 2, 1995 S. Page 3 of staff report for Brown's Car Wash City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 30. The applicant shall establish a no cut zone on each lot, subject to approval by the city in which no vegetation shall be removed, no grading will be permitted, no material may be stored, and no equipment may enter. 31. Bluff areas shall be protected by the use of double fencing consisting of silt fencing for erosion control and tree protection fencing. In addition, where excavation or construction is close to the bluff or in a critical area, a barrier of staked hay bales shall also be installed. U , I 32. The applicant shall provide an on -site forester to assist with and direct the tree preservation for the development. 33. The houses shall be equipped with gutters and the down spouts shall be directed toward the private street and away from the bluff, or some other design to meet the Best Practices Management Handbook's standards for roof runoff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the variance to the bluff setback requirement until the applicant can come back with a specific house pad location and specific variance request All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20 -267 REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL DMIENSIONAL LETTERS AND TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN• 7901 GREAT PLAI BOULEVARD, GARY BROWN. John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Brown is requesting a sign variance to allow a second wall mounted sign and a variance from Section 20 -1267 requiring individual dimensional letters for wall signs. On January 3rd the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed variance. The Commission concurred with the findings presented in the staff report and recommended denial of the variance. On September of last year the City Council reviewed the site plan and the conditional use for the car wash. At that time it was indicated that separate sign permits would be required for any signage on the building. The report and the letter that went to the applicant indicated that signage shall comply with the city sign ordinance and that signage would be permitted on street frontage only. In this case it was West 79th Street. The existing signs on the building are in violation of the city code. As mentioned before, the sign must use individual dimensional letters and the wall signs permitted on street frontage only. A sign consisting of individual letters could be put on the north elevation of the building. Based on ordinance requirements, a 75 square foot sign could be permitted. Staff is recommending denial of the variance and that the existing signs be removed and if the applicant wishes to have a sign on the building, that one which conforms to the ordinance be erected. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions of John? Councilman Berquist: There are two signs. The signs that we're talking about are the ones that are indicated on the drawings that were indicated with the staff report above the entrance and exit doors, correct? John Rask: Correct. 53 1 1 1 1 L� City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 Councilman Berquist: And the only item of incompatibility with the ordinance is the fact that those should be on a pedestal. Not that they should be at eye level? John Rask: Well, you're allowed to have a display message as a part of the signage can contain the display message, entrance, exit. Open 24 hours. So that could remain. The real problem is the one on the south elevation which faces Highway 5. As the ordinance only allows signage for street frontage. Councilman Berquist: And as often as I drive by there, frankly I don't read the signs I guess because they're even, I know it's there. It's not something that's intrusive to me. Is there any other signage on the car wash property denoting the fact that it's a car wash area? John Rask: Just -,with the existing one there is Councilman Berquist: With the other. John Rask: Yes. It says car wash. It'd be on the west elevation of the existing one and then there's some directional signage on the building itself. Councilman Berquist: No further questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening, and I've seen him. Councilman Senn: A question? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. Councilman Senn: Right now there's signage on both sides, correct? John Rask: Correct. Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. But I thought, okay so what you're saying is the signage that's on the north side is fine. It meets the ordinance requirement? John Rask: No. It needs that wall mounted signs have to use individual dimensional letters. We don't allow painted signs anymore. That was a change that was made with the sign ordinance revisions last January. Kate Aanenson: But they could have a sign on that face. Councilman Senn: They could have a sign on the north facia but the ordinance, at least as it is now, without a variance, they couldn't have one on the south? John Rask: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. And that's simply by the interpretation of street frontage, which you're saying is 79th? ' John Rask: Correct. 54 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Gary, would you like to come forward and plead your case. Gary Brown: Yes sir. I am Gary Brown. First of all I got a little grief here with the, January 3rd was the Planning Commission meeting, correct? I didn't get invited to the party. I got my notice in the mail on January 4th. So I guess I got shot down at that one. I can understand that's all to the Supreme Court here and see what we get. I was negligent. I didn't know that I had to get a permit to put a sign on the building. I thought a permit for the sign was for a free standing sign. I may be negligent there but I do have to address the fact here that I can have a sign on the front of the building but I can't have a sign on the back of the building. Therefore, when the people try coming in in the wrong direction, and they're going to go in in the summer time, they're going to go in the back instead of the front and the front guy's coming in one way and the back guy's coming in the other way, we're going to have a hell of a wreck, you know. And another thing I'd like to bring up is, it might not be a lot of money to you guys but I paid $30,000.00 in permits to the city of Chanhassen to put this thing up and I'm not supposed to let people know what the hell I built? Now, so fire away. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you have any questions of Gary at this time? Anybody? Councilman Berquist: You paid $30,000.00 in permits and you put up, those signs are painted wood signs on the front and rear of the building. Gary Brown: Yeah, I wanted them to show off. I mean I can put those little bitty squares up there like we put on the other building and nobody can see but I've got to advertise this place guys. Councilman Berquist I'm not disputing the fact that you've got to advertise. I agree 100% with that. I haven't Gary Brown: ...red and white signs. Amoco Oil's got big red and white signs. Holiday got signs in the front of the building, on the back of the building, on the side of the building, why can't I have one of these? Councilman Berquist: Well I can't really address that. I guess I'm just surprised. I'm a little bit embarrassed first of all that I haven't looked at the signs to know whether in fact they are what they say or what they're constructed of but the fact that you spent as much money as you did on the car wash and yet we've got painted plywood signs is a little bit disconcerting. That's item one. Item two, the advertising I think is permitted on the north side in a different form. Is that correct? He can have a sign advertising the fact that he's got a car wash on the north side of the building and yet in a different form. Not building mounted, as it currently stands. So he can rectify that situation. And the south situation then becomes the issue. Kate Aanenson: He can also rectify the other issue you brought up about the enter and exit. That's something he can certainly put on there too. At the appropriate level to make sure people are cued right. Councilman Senn: Well and that doesn't require a variance one way or the other. You can just approve that. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah. Councilman Berquist: So the real bone of contention here becomes the fact that he is unable to put a sign up that promotes a state of the art car wash on the most traveled road within the city. And that is because he has, tell me why he can't put one? How does the ordinance read? To limit his ability to put one on that north side? John Rask: Yeah, signage on street frontage only. In this case it's West 79th Street. 55 r, I L f� 1 n City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 Councilman Berquist: Okay. Gary Brown: Aren't you allowed to have one sign for each road? John Rask: Correct. For the building, sure. Gary Brown: Highway 5 isn't a road? John Rask: You don't have direct frontage on it. The property has to abut the roadway. Gary Brown: Who runs the property between there? John Rask: That's a separate building. Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Councilman Mason: Well, I remember when all of this sign ordinance stuff went by. As I recall there were a number of business people in the city of Chanhassen that were involved in it and gave it their full and complete blessing. I think these problems can be pretty easily rectified and stay within the ordinances. I'm not going to deny the issue about advertising on Highway 5. That may be an issue for a later, well maybe that's an issue now too but I remember all the work that went into the sign ordinance and I know all the varied members of the community that were involved in it and I'm comfortable with what they came up with. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark Councilman Senn: I guess I would be comfortable if the signage were switched to the type of signage which is required by the ordinance. As to the issue north versus south, I'd also be comfortable with the signage facing Highway 5. As an alternative to the signage facing north on a variance but the problem is, isn't your entrance to the north? On the north side. ' Gary Brown: Correct. Councilman Senn: So to take that time away, then you've got your advertising towards Highway 5 but you've got no identity for a car wash at the entry point other than you could still have the word entry. Gary Brown: Correct. Councilman Senn: If you had a choice of one or the other, which one would you like? Gary Brown: I'm going to stick to my ground and fight this one out. I've got to have it on both ends. Councilman Senn: Well Gary the ordinance doesn't allow you to have it on the south end. If you're given a variance for the south end, can you live without the north end? Is it that important on the north end? Gary Brown: No. Councilman Senn: Okay. 56 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 Gary Brown: You know, let's remember back also when I got my first blueprints done and I went through the whole show up here and I came in and everybody liked it and then all of a sudden, oh you've got to have a pitched roof on that building, you know. So I bellied up for a couple grand and changed all that and did that and I didn't put any stink up about that. Even though every building within, how far ever you want to look down there's got a flat roof on it. I've got a peaked roof, you know. So I gave and took on that, you know so I expect you guys to give and take on some of this stuff too. Mayor Chmiel: The only trouble is often times you give the variance and then you have to live with... Gary Brown: If you read in the sign ordinance, it says if bears hardship. Now I don't know if it's your hardship or mine but another thing is in there that, are the signs detrimental to the public. I mean are they disturbing someone. Are they ruining someone's air. You know. No, they're not. That's what I read in there. I don't see any of my neighbors here saying this is good, bad or indifferent. I guess they were all invited as well. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah they were. Although I was trying to defray some of your costs too Gary. I spent $6.00 so that's $29,994.00 that I paid toward this thing. Gary Brown: I'm not asking for... Councilman Berquist: I may be grasping at straws. And I understand what you're saying. Believe me, I do. Is there any method by which you could put, erect a sign on the do it yourself property that would orient, that would meet the ordinances and orient towards Highway 5 that would serve your purposes, As I think about it, probably not. Gary Brown: I can put a billboard up next to Highway 5. Councilman Senn: You know what I tried to do is liken it to other places where, I don't know if you'd say much more or much worse can occur slightly by the fact that there's a parcel that fronts both on TH 5 and on the side street and they have signs on both sides. So I mean that's not the part that's offending me, and stuff. It doesn't offend me to have the signage I guess towards TH 5 and towards the north if that doesn't create any real big problems for us. You know as far as the types of materials on the plan, I think that's kind of like a negotiable. Let's get it straighten around and get rid of the plywood signs. But the more L think about it, it's the kind of thing %yell if you just put it, if 5's more important and you put it there and that's a variance and that's the trade -off because you don't have it on the north, but that's what makes sense because the entrance is there, then I go thinking down the street and down the road and I king of start lighting up because there's a lot bigger lots, a person's that's allowable simply because the lots do front both ways. It kind of seems like well, what's hurting. Why not do it. Councilman Berquist: Well and my point is that all the time and all the effort that's put into putting an ordinance together and all the people, the man hours that were involved and they tried to do a good job and then we go ahead and read it and say yeah, it sounds good and we implement it. Then in Less than 6 months we're in a situation where we have to almost abandoned what we had said we would adhere to. That's the part that is hard for me. It's like saying well your work didn't mean diddly. Councilman Senn: Well I mean again, you have to remember ordinances are guides. You know I mean I can say that tongue in cheek because I voted against that ordinance but. 57 fl 1 1 I City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 1 Mayor Chmiel: Mike, you were going to say something. Councilman Mason: Well, Steve I hear what you're saying but I guess in defense of the work that's been done, I think certainly with the committees I've been on and what not, you look for everything foreseeable and as soon as you get something laid in stone, three months later something comes up that you didn't anticipate. So I think if we should decide, and I think at this point it's a very big if, leave something on the south side. I don't think that negates work that's been done. I mean it is a variance and it's not, you know a variance isn't etched in stone. Councilman Berquist: And Gary's point that the affect on anyone in the surrounding area is very valid. Councilman Mason: It's a point well taken. Councilman Berquist: I mean we've got a gas station, a gas station, an oil change and a car wash. Councilman Senn: Well you know I think a business ought to be able to identify itself is what it comes down to. You know in terms of the type of use. Outside of an office building though, I don't think every tenant should be able to be listed that's in the office building, okay. But again, no matter how you look at that, you're going to differ on opinions but I think you have to go back to the basics that the business really ought to, at least in my mind, have clear identification as to what they're from a retail standpoint because I mean if you're going to be in retail, if you don't have that, it seems to me that you're starting from somewhere below ground zero. 1 Councilman Mason: Yeah, in thinking about this I think I can live with a car wash sign on the south side, but I think the signage itself has to change. I think the reason that the plywood and the painted, I have some. ' Councilman Senn: I mean I keep yelling at Gerhardt about the signage next door. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've sort of discussed this back and forth. I think it's time that we come to a conclusion with a vote. I would entertain a motion. Councilman Senn: How about a motion to the variance to allow the signage on the south, and north because I assume once you do the south side it makes the north a variance too, does it not? Kate Aanenson: You can speak to whichever. If you want to just give one side or both. Councilman Senn: Okay. But that the signage materials be switched to conform to the ordinances as reviewed and approved by staff. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Berquist: So we're limiting it to the one to the south side. Councilman Senn: No, the variance is on the south side. He's allowed... north side. Mayor Chmiel: The variance is for the south side as well as the north. i 1 58 City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah, north he can do without... I Councilman Berquist: Okay, so the fact that there's two signs now will stay and the only thing that will change I would be the material by which the signs are constructed. Councilman Senn: Well, they've got to conform to the ordinance. I mean if there's sizing problems or anything else like that, I'm saying staff can figure that out. Councilman Berquist: What can of worms do we open? ' Kate Aanenson: Can the staff comment on that? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I Kate Aanenson: We've got three more coming Gary Brown: You know I didn't take ... letters and stuff up there but if you see the way I built that, I have those ' lights that shine down as well as on the building. If I'm going to put, I think it called for back lit signage, correct John? John Rask: Yeah, generally if the signage is to illuminated, it is supposed to be back lit. If the lighting's, I mean obviously a lot of buildings have lighting that's designed more to highlight the building or provide safety. I don't see that as being an issue here. I think that's, you have to illuminate the entrance. ' Councilman Berquist: Can Kate comment? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Kate. , Kate Aanenson: I guess the staff would like some direction because we've got three more variances of the exact same issue coming forward. It sounds like we may need to go back and look at the sign ordinances. We're going against the grain here Councilman Berquist What are the specifics? Kate Aanenson: These same issues John Rask: Applebee's, Tires Plus. Kate Aanenson: We spent all that time on Byerly's on this exact issue. Councilman Senn: But see that's where I disagree with you. We gave it away with Byerly's. We gave them a monument down, right on the corner of the road. We gave them another one up by their entrance. We gave them signage up on the building. Come on, from a retail standpoint, everyone in the world. knows where they're at. From any direction you come from, and now you're saying, and see that's where I have a hard time. I say gee we give them every advantage in the world, every view, every sign we've given them then we come down here to this little place and just because this guy doesn't front on both roads, we're saying no you can't have signage which identifies you know you to the traffic. That's where I feel that there's something wrong. 59 ' F, L 1 1 L City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but that basically is a rule ... being on either side and that gives him that automatically. By not having it, you just don't get it. Councilman Senn: We did a variance to Byerly's. Mayor Chmiel: Not as far as their signage. Councilman Senn: By allowing the monument down on the corner. I thought we did that through a variance. We took action on it. Kate Aanenson: They wanted the fine food and dining. We spent a lot of time on that. Councilman Senn: Oh, up on the building. I'm talking about the extra one we approved down at the corner of Powers and. Kate Aanenson: That was in substitution for something else. John Rask: The center signs for Kinko's and... Councilman Senn: It was for all the tenants in the project. Kate Aanenson: But they didn't give them extra wall signs. Councilman Senn: No, but that was an extra sign I thought we gave them. Councilman Berquist: Real quickly, specifically what are the three that are coming before us. Real quickly. Kate Aanenson: ...that we're not bogging this one down with future ones but. Roger Knutson: No, I think everyone should be aware of it. Kate Aanenson: Right. I just want to make sure that's clear. That this goes on it's own merits but we have Tires Plus, Cheers that are coming in for variances. Saying they want additional signage on facia's. And what's the other one? John Rask: Applebee's. Kate Aanenson: Applebee's. They all want additional signage. So I'm just saying, if we're in conflict then, staffs spending a lot of time on these and we just maybe should change the code or something. That's why I'm just asking. Councilman Senn: Same situation Kate where it's, they want it south? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, additional facia's, sure. ME LJ City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 John Rask: Because of the alignment of TH 5 and West 79th, how it bends through there. The west elevation's actually has great visibility from TH 5. The way Applebee's will be oriented on the lot, it will pick up good exposure if it can get a west, a design on their western elevation. Mayor Chmiel: You see it from both directions. John Rask: Yeah, north and west. Kate Aanenson: Sure, it's the same issue. I mean do you want maximize your visibility so, I'm just saying that's something we talked about in the sign ordinance. If you want to go back and revisit it... Mayor Chmiel: How many more could come back in besides that? Kate Aanenson: A lot I guess. Every business. Perkin's. Sure. Target. Councilman Mason: Well, Councilman Berquist I believe you made the comment a little while ago, what can of worms are we going to open. Councilman Berquist: And the just found out. Councilman Mason: And we just did and I would have to say that certainly changes my feelings on this. And I'm, yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, being that there wasn't a second. Councilman Senn: I'll withdraw it anyway. Mayor Chmiel: Is there another motion? Councilman Berquist: I really want there to be some other solution. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I do too. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see it as well but there's no way you can do it other than the fart you change the ordinance. Go all the Nvay back through it. Councilman Senn: There's nothing in the ordinance...? John Rask: No, believe me. That's the first thing I looked at. Kate Aanenson: We always try to find a way to resolve this without having to go through this process. Gary Brown: Do you suppose the ordinance is maybe too tough? Kate Aanenson: Well I think the group, the Chamber that put it together had this specific... 61 1 u City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the entirety of the Chamber or the people from the community, people who are in business here who designed all of that. Gary Brown: ...I asked to put a sign up on the highway in 1990. It was put up 7 weeks ago. Councilman Senn: And it's probably in violation now, right? Gary Brown: I'm just saying. ...start calling that ridiculous. I've only been in business for 25 years, you know. A new guy comes in, he gets a sign right away. That's neither here nor there. I don't care... Kate Aanenson: We needed a sign permit. We told him he needed a sign permit. It was put up in violation. That was the one issue right there. I mean we told it as part of the site plan review that we needed a sign permit so. Councilman Senn: And this is a separate parcel from your other buildings on there? Gary Brown: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he changed those parcels. It was all one parcel at one time, right? Gary Brown: Yeah, at one time. Councilman Senn: You wouldn't want to put it back together would you? Gary Brown: Thinking about it. Councilman Senn: That's a solution. Mayor Chmiel: That'd be the only solution. Councilman Senn: If you put it back together, we could solve the problem pretty easily. Councilman Berquist: I mean that's a very viable solution. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I guess the more I think about it here, I guess I'd like to make another motion. To table this so we can look at the. Gary Brown: I think that's ... I think you should go down and look at it. Look at it. In the dark. This is a good time of the year to look at it. It's always dark. But look at it in the dark and you guys tell me if it offends you. Councilman Senn: No part of it is Gary, we've got... Mayor Chmiel: ...by what we have to go by on the books, unfortunately. Councilman Senn: Well and that doesn't mean we shouldn't change what's on the books. I don't know but now that we have something that's come up that doesn't meet it, maybe we should just take a few minutes to go back and look at it and see if we've done something we shouldn't have done. I don't know. I'm just saying maybe 62 l J City Council Meeting - January 22, 1996 we should table it and look at that and you should give some thought to re- combining the parcels. Maybe one way or another we can figure something out. Gary Brown: I think that's a good idea. Councilman Berquist: Make a motion to table. Councilman Senn: Table, I did. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Berquist: I'll second it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table Variance Request #9542 from Section 20- 1267 requiring individual dimensional letters, and Section 20- 13 -3(3) to allow a second viall mounted sign on the south elevation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AMENDMENT TO CFFY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CEN IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Don Halla of Halla Nursery requested a text amendment to allow a landscape nursery as a permitted use in the A2 district. The Planning Commission held several public hearings to discuss this ordinance amendment. On January 3rd of '96 the Planning Commission denied Mr. Halla's request but did approve an ordinance amendment which would allow retail nurseries as an interim use in the A2 district. Again this is an amendment to the entire zoning district so it would apply to all those properties which are currently zoned A2. As I had mentioned, Mr. Halla originally brought this ordinance amendment forward requesting a permitted use. Or requesting to make retail nurseries or garden centers a permitted use in this district. The commission did approve it as an interim use. Mr. Halla had indicated after the Planning Commission meeting that he was not interested in bringing it forward in that manner and that he was not interested in obtaining an interim use permit. Staff feels that the ordinance is justified and we feel that it may help us deal with some of the other nurseries we have as well as provide them with some opportunity to do a limited amount of retail sales if they meet their conditions set forth in an interim use permit. Currently the zoning ordinance prohibits retail nurseries and garden centers in the A2 district. Wholesale nurseries are currently allowed as an interim use in the district. Staff recognizes that we do have these pre- existing situations out there where we do have nurseries doing a limited amount of retail. That this would be a way for us to legitimize them. If they're interested in expanding, they would come through an interim use permit where we could look at each site on a site specific basis. Attach conditions where we feel appropriate to mitigate some of the negative impacts on adjoining properties. Staff is of the opinion that retail sales as an interim use would be consistent with other uses in the district and the comprehensive plan. Our concerns with allowing retail nurseries or garden centers as a permitted use ... who are doing some retail and how do we treat them. Right now they're non - conforming uses. This would kind of remove the cloud that's currently over the property with a non - conforming status. But on the other hand if they give a termination date, which would be set upon application for an interim use. There was conditions added that would apply to all interim use permits for wholesale and retail nurseries. A number of these were in the ordinance currently. They currently apply to wholesale nurseries. What we did was modify them slightly to apply to retail and wholesale. So with that brief overview, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. 63 tJ n J L_.J 1 Planning Commission 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. All voted in favor- and the motion carded unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 20 -267, REQUIRING 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 report on this item. 1 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... I Conrad: But hearing northbound, which is permitted if it's done properly. ' 47 7L 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 995- 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 for sign variance 495 -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. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with a wall sign. .• I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 3. The variance request is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Farmakes returned at this time. ' PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOWUFILLY'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. Public Present: I Name Address 1 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 11 Brad Johnson Vernelle Clayton 7425 Frontier Trail 422 Santa Fe Circle Karen & Robert R. Copeland 14 Cooper Avenue, Edina Truman Howell 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Shaimin Al -Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. 1 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 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Daytime) u 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 /SPR/VAC/VAR/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' /:i' 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. j I L�� 11, 0 PROJECT NAME (-- ji� jZ /z�i -1 -i LOCATION �� (�,/L c T �C /a ✓.mac ���. �,� LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTALACREAGE - 3 WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING C/- , -7-7, REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST �U / /� ��� ,, /�e� �G 2P y7 > 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. 1 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 dev opment review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions re' a4foroved by jhe- applicant. Date Sig Fee Paid / -z -/- �2 Date Application Received on 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. 77>- Permit # Site Address: C-/ eC4- - 224� AU' Zoning District: Owner: .5", Phone: Address: Applicant: Phone: Address: /J Contractor: Phone: --pulcuy �Jlgll Size of Sign: Length ft. Width If a Wall Sign, provide the following: Wall area in sq. ft. y4 ft. Permit Fee $ Date: _/_/ Receipt # — rtuui — / — / — 10 —/—/ Height ft. Total Area -2 y sq. ft. Percentage of Wall Coverage by signer � 1 � iv» -,,, ru�rana�,,•tiorroeev wneTw. jrm,,MG tojvAR& LT , 4, r A r -,� Ww et e mou 1'emoev V. - r o• C s e1 YA-no t, rtom- 3 b c t CITY OF CHANHASOrm 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 51,500.00 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 MEMORANDUM 1 October 2, 1995 Mr. Gary Brown 1831 Koehnen Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Brown: CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 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: 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 applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any landscaping materials along West 79th Street in conflict with the site improvements. 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. 'LJ 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 0 Brown's Car Wash September 6, 1995 Update September 20, 1995 Page 3 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 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. I 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 (Attachment 91). 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.