Loading...
6. Kenneth Durr: Sign Height Variance at Landings Dr and Minnewashta Parkway Intersection.CITY OF CHANBASSEN RSF - Residential Single Family STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variance request for a sign height variance to allow a seven and one -half (7.5) foot high entry monument sign at the intersections of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway I I-- U J � t LOCATION: Minnewashta Landings Subdivision located at the intersection of Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway on the northwest shore of Lake Minnewashta APPLICANT: Kenneth Durr 4830 Westgate Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 935 -7789 PRESENT ZONING: R ACREAGE: DENSITY: !Q 1 w 19.7 acres (gross) 1.4 u/a (gross) 17.2 acres (net) 1.5 u/a (net) PC DATE: 11/1/95 (0 CC DATE: 11/27/95 CASE #: 95 -8 Sign By: Rask:v Action by Cify Ad1d1*ft jo Ll1dOfS,* rah �2....- .L(— .•::..1..��� ADJACENT ZONING 7, -'' Kd —orz-1 AND LAND USE: N- Highway 7 and RSF, Residential Single Family 1 - A-- S- RD - Recreational Development, Lake Minnewashta E- RSF - Residential Single Family W- RSF, Minnewashta Parkway and Fire Station WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The entry monument is located at the entrance of the subdivision on the recreational beachlot. The recreational beachlot and the area surrounding the entry monument have been heavily landscaped. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential r till nil it��������� /�1� `mil fit• ♦ rff17 �z Ma n r �►� moo: ■r� ♦ �sav� ran�A -: . COU D. IE1L'1+1 ROAD ► OVA 1.. � II , - -- rs MAR�'���i I Minnewashta Landings Sign Variance November 1, 1995 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20- 1301(2), Signs Allowed in Agricultural and Residential Districts, "Area identification/entrance signs." Only one (1) monument sign may be erected on a lot, which 1 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 operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground. BACKGROUND On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the final plat for Minnewashta Landings. Entry i monument(s) were shown on the preliminary plat at the intersection of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway, however, no sign details were provided at the time of plat approval. In August of this year, the applicant erected the monument sign without first obtaining a permit. Staff notified the applicant that the sign did not meet ordinance requirements and the sign would have to either be removed or a variance granted by the City Council. The applicant is therefore ' requesting a variance to allow the sign to remain as constructed. The preliminary plat, dated March 21, 1994, showed three entry monuments located at the intersection of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway. However, no details were submitted showing the height or size of the proposed monuments or signs. The applicant indicated in his appeal that the entrance sign is the same as submitted in the original proposal for the development of the land and was installed accordingly, assuming the original proposal was recognized. In his appeal, the applicant also ascertains that the sign is in proper scale to the area and does not endanger public safety or impair property values in the neighborhood (see letter from Kenneth Durr dated September 29, 1995). I ANALYSIS Based on the criteria provided in the ordinance, staff is recommending denial of the variances. ' Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape, or topography prevents the placement of a sign which meets ordinance requirements. The applicant proceeded to construct the entry monument under the assumption that the sign was approved along with the preliminary and final plat. As mentioned above, staff could find no records of sign details or any other evidence showing that the sign was approved. Generally, signs are reviewed separately through an administrative permit. Minnewashta Landings Sign Variance November 1, 1995 Page 3 The sign ordinance requires entry monuments /signs to be maintenance free. It is questionable whether or not a wood lattice backdrop will be maintenance free and provide a long lasting appearance. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the sign variance, staff would recommend that a condition be added to ensure that the sign is maintained by the homeowners association. Whereas, a clearly defined hardship may not be apparent, the applicant has attempted to create an entrance theme which takes into account the natural features and scale of the site. The sign meets minimum setback requirements from property lines and does not interfere with required site lines. An abundance of landscape plantings have been added around the sign and on the recreational beachlot creating an aesthetically pleasing entry approach. The proposed entry monument will not obstruct the view of the traveling public, increase congestion, or endanger the public safety. In addition, the sign area is twenty (20) square feet, which meets the minimum requirements of the sign ordinance. The Planning Commission recently considered a similar request for an "after the fact" sign variance. On August 2, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a variance request by Lundgren Bros. Construction for three sign variances to exceed the five foot requirement. One of the three signs was already constructed with the other two being proposed. The Commission recommended that the City Council deny all three variance requests. On August 14, 1995, the City Council approved a variance for the existing eight (8) foot high entry monument sign at Highway 41 and Longacres Drive and charged a double fee. The City Council required that the other two proposed signs meet minimum ordinance standards. 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 not demonstrated a distinct hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape, 1 1 r L 'J Minnewashta Landings Sign Variance November 1, 1995 Page 4 or topography prevent the placement of a sign which meet ordinance requirements. 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 this petition is based are applicable to other properties in this same zoning classification. 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 this variance does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the property, but rather add architectural design quality to the entrance theme. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship appears to be self - created because the applicant could have reduced the overall height of the sign while maintaining the same sign area. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other lands because the sign meets minimum setback requirements and does not obstruct the view of the traveling public. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Minnewashta Landings Sign Variance November 1, 1995 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On November 1, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the after the fact height variance request for an entry monument sign for Minnewashta Landings subdivision. The Commission recommended denial of the variance and concurred with the findings presented in the staff report. The Commission agreed that the sign was well designed and does not detract from the area, however, the Commission did not find a hardship necessary to grant a variance. Several Commissioners indicated that it may be necessary to review this section of the ordinance if these problems continue to occur and variances are granted. One neighbor spoke in favor of the variance stating that the sign did not block his view and the sign was constructed in good taste. No one in attendance spoke in opposition to the variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies the variance request for a seven and one -half (7.5) foot high entry monument sign for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape, or topography prevent the placement of a sign which meet ordinance requirements. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship appears to be self - created, because the applicant could have reduced the overall height of the sign while maintaining the same size area." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from the applicant dated September 29, 1995 2. Sketch of proposed sign 3. Site Plan showing proposed sign 4. Application dated September 29, 1995 5. Section of preliminary plat showing proposed entrance monuments 6. Section of proposed landscaping plan showing entrance monument n 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 6 112 FOOT HIGH ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LANDINGS DRIVE AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KENNETH DURR. Public Present: Name Address Kenneth Durr Craig Miller 4830 Westgate Road, Mtka 55345 6450 Minnewashta Parkway John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Ken Durr: My name Ken Durr. I reside at 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka. At the time that the preliminary plats were developed and submitted, I did submit the day following, holding all of the applications, 20 some copies of this that we had prepared originally. Prior to any of our work being done on the property. With that was a drawing showing, which was on the screen there that Bob had on. Showing the drawing dimensions of the sign. The actual signage area... about 4 feet under what is allowed. The height of the lattice work is I think 6 foot 5. Foot and a half higher than what the ordinance requires. Now I did have these were prepared by our office. We had these run at Kinko's and there were 20 some copies. Where they went, I don't know. But we assumed that being that this was included with the application, and the sign detail, that we didn't have to do anything further. That was an error. Staff report states that one of our landscaping plans only shows one monument. Originally we had three. There was the lattice work on this side. The gatehouse in the center. And more lattice work on the other side, as the three proposed. We dropped that idea when we were required by the city to open Ironwood Road through our subdivision. Because we knew once the four additional people who were not residents of Minnewashta Landings, that we could not ever control that by a gatehouse because the association did not include those people. We always, up until finally determining to drop the gatehouse and the other monument on the other side, we always did show three but I think maybe the staff didn't recognize that on the drawing that they referred to with one monument, there are really three. They're indicated in red. It says monuments. And there are three of them but in black and white they may look like trees rather than monuments. The... ordinance states 5 feet. We're in excess of that and that's our error in not checking... and following procedures but I really did not know that that was featured as a problem. Interestingly, even our appraisal for the subdivision which was done back in May 26, 1994, the appraisal has the same entry 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 monument. And essentially there, it's nearly identical to the ... that's near to that which we could possibly do. Now since that... driving down Highway 7 after this occurred, and just observing the various subdivision signs all along Highway 7. There is not a sign along Highway 7, the main subdivision on the south side of TH 7, from TH 41 to Minnewashta Parkway, that is 5 feet or less. Every sign is over 5 feet. Some of them as high as 10 feet. And I have taken pictures from, here's one at 8 foot 2 inches. There's one over on TH 41 that's over 8 feet. Any number of them. There's Minnewashta Heights. Sterling Estates. Minnewashta Manor. All of them along Highway 7 and some as much as 10 feet and every one is in the highway right -of -way so I concur that yes, we acted without a permit. We're in excess of the 5 feet. We have a spent a great deal of money and time and effort and concern on trying to develop the very best looking community that we could. We didn't just do this hap hazardly. A lot of thought was given to the total planning concept. The size of the sign. The coloring of the sign. The color of the lettering and all to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible. And we receive nothing but compliments from neighbors on it and not one objection to anything that we've done to the entry. So yes, we're in violation but we have spent a great deal of money and effort for signage was $7,000.00 and it is done, not just all out of wood. It has a steel structure inside of the wood so that the posts are steel mounted in concrete. It's the same type of structure that's used in the Arboretum for their signage for their arbors and the people there have gone to great expense to finding the best materials that will get longevity and service from their use at the Arboretum. And I had a lot of conversations with them. I even used the same person who does their signs. Pete Boyer who happens to be a building contractor does all of the Arboretum's arbors and signage work. So I employed Pete Boyer to build this and we did it with the same materials, same techniques, the .same preservatives as they use at the Arboretum. I'm confident that the longevity of it is going to be very good. We've used similar procedures before on lattice work that is 25 or 26 years old now and has held up very well. And it does hold up well at the Arboretum. And we do have a sufficient money in our homeowners association to handle anything that needs to be done as far as maintenance. We're not going to have a shabby look by any means after all we've spent on the subdivision. It's a look that I think is important in character. It's in good scale and good taste. But it exceeds 5 feet. Mancino: Thank you very much. This is a public, oh. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing please. Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. Craig Miller: My name is Craig Miller. I reside at 6450 Minnewashta Parkway, which is directly across from the Landings entrance. One of the signs ... and the sign is there when I'm fl 18 1 L� t Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 i ' working in my yard and when I look out my front window. It does not restrict my view of the lake. It's done in good taste. It's not gawdy. It represents the area very well. It fits well ' with the landscaping around it. In short, if I have no objections to it, I can't see why anybody else would. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. ' Skubic moved, Meyer seconded to close the public healing. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: First of all, could you answer the question as to why from TH 41 west to ' Minnewashta Landings there are signs on Highway 7 or south of Highway 7 that are higher in height than what the ordinance says. Rask: Most of those are older subdivisions. I can't say that they went in after we had a sign, or before we had a sign ordinance or not. I don't know that. I would assume they were in before the sign ordinance, not this latest revision but before we really had _any standards. Looking back at other subdivisions in the city, we have a great number of permits for other r subdivisions for their entry monument signs and if you look at other subdivisions throughout the city you'll notice that the vast majority of those do meet requirements. They are low profile signs. They are not over 5 feet and conform to the other regulations so I would assume that it's just because they are older subdivisions. ' Mancino: Excuse me for a public service announcement. Kevin Snyder has his lights on. It's a red Ford Bronco parked in the lower lot. And we'll stop proceedings until you come back. Just kidding. Thank you. I assume if it's a newer one with a newer ordinance you ' would be out there talking to them? Okay, thank you. Farmakes: What would you attribute to the recent developments that we're seeing the same ' problem. With Rottlund and Lundgren. Rask: Yeah, I don't know where we've missed there. Obviously if you've got two there's ' something going on. I mentioned though responding to Nancy question, it hasn't always been a problem. We've got a whole filing cabinet full of permits that show people have come in r and they've applied and even you look at all the subdivisions we've got going in, we haven't had a problem on the other ones. They've come in and asked for permits. ' Aanenson: Maybe I can respond to that a little bit. Some of the newer subdivisions that have gone in have been in the Parade of Homes. They're marketing to a different identity. Some of the other subdivisions that we've had prior to that aren't going in with the same r 19 r Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 priority because there's a different marketing technique and so signage has become more important on some of these subdivisions. Farmakes: As a "monument" versus a. Aanenson: A statement, identity. Exactly. Which maybe we haven't seen as much before. Where they wanted to match, similar to like the Lundgren where they wanted to match kind of their theme of what they're trying to do. Just as Mr. Durr has indicated what he's trying to do... Mancino: And the other hard part is, we are not a design review board here. We're the Planning Commission to uphold the ordinances that we have. Comments from the commissioners. Mr. Mehl, would you like to start. Mehl: Yeah, I think it's a very attractive sign. Very well designed. It looks great. It's probably going to stand there a long time you know with the materials it's made out of I don't know how maintenance free the lattice work is but aside from that I think that the sign could be scaled down and proportioned down to be basically the same sign and the same attractive sign to fall within the ordinance. Mancino: Okay, Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I think there are other precedence of mistakes being made by builders, developers in regards to city ordinances. And criterias from the outside looking at problems sometimes seem petty and bureaucratic. However, when you're coming up with ordinances, we do not tag onto the end of the ordinance as a form of law saying, unless it looks good. And that is not an excuse to ignore criteria that we have here and we do have variance criteria to give variances. I agree with the city staff that the criteria is not being met here, in any one of the several guidelines. I agree that the sign could be reconformed to have the same appearance and fit within the parameters. I am somewhat concerned that we're getting a rash of these from developers. I'm wondering about the intent of following the ordinance. And it seems that they continue when they're off or they forget about the plans, that they continue to be taller. They don't have a tendency to be smaller than the ordinance, so I think. Mancino: But we don't know about those. Farmakes: Well, that's neither here or there. It's just an observation. My point here on this issue before us is a procedure issue. If we say that this is okay for this, because it happens to look good, that is not a criteria for a variance. Nor is criteria that we add on when we're, when the city is passing ordinances. I think that this should be handled the way that we've 20 t 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 handled the others, as an issue and we should be consistent with how we deal with this. Otherwise we're then creating a precedent situation where if we could—well that's okay, we'll look the other way... Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Meyers. Meyer: It's been very well covered... nothing additional to add. Mancino: Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: Whereas typically I enforce our ordinances, I guess I'm a little bit showing some sensitivity in this particular case, probably because I didn't buy the ordinance in the first place. Probably because an entry monument sign is significant. Can create a sense of place. A sense of welcome. I don't think our ordinance allows that to happen. It's meant to minimize the impact of signage whereas in many cases signage can be a real positive thing for a major development. So that's why I'm vacillating here. I don't have, I haven't made up my mind what I want to do. I really buy following up the ordinance again. The ordinance is relatively fresh, as I said before. Here's a case where we have something that's fairly well designed, and I probably lobbied for a design bonus, if I recall what my position was when the ordinance was going through. So I'm sort of caught between what my feelings were then. A case where I think this is probably an attractive sign. Well designed. Not offensive. Not, you know it's not doing anything bad. Yet the ordinance is there so I'll stop my comments at that. Mancino: I was going to say, and who decides the design bonus? Commissioner Meyers. I mean Skubic. Excuse me. Skubic: I'm going to support the ordinance. I believe it's put there for a right reason. Certainly maintenance I believe is an issue and also the size that we're trying to level the playing field here so that there aren't any advantages. Should the City Council decide to approve this, as they have on some previous situations, I certainly hope that they will take staffs recommendations to insure that the maintenance is covered by the homeowners association and also some penalty fee be added. ' Mancino: Thank you. I also support what Commissioner Skubic has just talked about. As hard it is for me, I think the design is very good. I think all the thinking has been done to design it well. To make sure it's constructed well and will weather time and I have no doubt ' that the homeowners association will maintain it. 100 %. We still have a new ordinance and it may be, from these last two, what would be Longacres signage that was done on Highway 41 and this one, that we look again at the ordinance. We may want to do that and do some 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995 revision but as it stands right now, I too would say that a variance, or hardship hasn't been established here. May I have a motion please? Farmakes: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission deny the variance request for a 7 1/2 foot high entry monument sign for the following reasons that's listed, 1 thru 3 from the report dated November 1, 1995. Mancino: Is there a second? Mehl: I second. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance request for a seven and one -half (7.5) foot high entry monument sign for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape or topography prevent the placement of a sign which meet ordinance requirements. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship appears to be self created because the applicant could have reduced the overall height of the sign while maintaining the same size area. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Mancino: When does this go in front of City Council? Rask: On the 27th. Mancino: On the 27th of November. Thank you. 22 1 ' KENNETH DURR ASSOCIATES • 4830 WESTGATE ROAD • MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 • TELEPHONE (612) 935 -7789 September 29, 1995 City of Chanhassen Subject: Area Indentification ' City Staff Entrance Sign Planning Commission City Council minnewashta Landings ' A varia a ce is requested for the installation of a sign measuring ' 6' -11 by 2' -10 approximately 20 square feet in size, mounted to a lattice backdrop. The top of the sign is 5' -9 above the ground. ' The lattice backdrop is 6' - 5 " above the ground. This entrance sign is the same as submitted in the original proposal for the development of the land and was installed ' accordingly, assuming the original proposal was recognized. There was also an entry gatehouse proposed which we determined not to install when the City required us to give access through Minnewashta Landings to four adjacent property owners via Iron- wood Road. ' The sign is in proper scale to the area and does not endanger public safety or impair property values in the neighborhood. ' The entire entrance, including the sign will be maintained by Minnewashta Landings Homeowners Association. We are pleased to have had many compliments from the neighborhood ' on the development in general and particularly the entry approach to the area. ' I respectfully request your approval of the variance. Sincerely, ' Kenneth Durr r/o cin nnrc anrf hrri /rin ro of n. rotnm AAn mnry Nmm�c a .,i }5�`* 'O HM 1' , _ • � •. �, • -s'1 �`��� �. _ �Y f ;a,,. r ) ,•: ?• •��; ` ..� •Sr,! �.-`' • • . .; `•; .4 tea.. a �+� a i!? t w {F, .. .e r t �• F '?4k�.S '; ,• •- ` f `��T t� - ��.y A ,a f r ib. L � - '�` \. �. . . �� - .; ::. t:� ��;r.'i�- .�•a'' �� J E ^j ^.J. •A•tk a. ., r•iY -r•.y -.w wt ^ r � • �;•- �".t' -itt' �4•,'r �, r h , ` r {{ 4. '� < `� •\"9s� i�.•r `� - ti f �i^ '-�: K'i �. 'Jj � R ; y` � � i a, ,y�t \. \ 1t `.L�y�*�A(;t ` � - y��,/� Y;,a2 . '.n °R " ' �Qt•J•••.: y :',- �°ai._ 4'. .1 lu�i �•`��+� �_ • � ;l � \ ti '�, L gti s1 a' L �y�� � y `r ?. .''��` �� t � � 1>� `' •� i i� '�• r ,�•••O� - �'..� - . '^. .�� a +`� ����• . } t ♦:` r, ?C',. `, � . �. t t 1l. �►• ' T:i t t" i� �+ V 1 v -r! •_ a �`y� fh '�� :` '• •;" '•:': i .! t ,{h i �e..'J`"`j�v N ' •L.�i.: •4 . •,apl, :. e. -... . .vim n li • . + : e '� 'ri1 cfi` \�.r-�.v •[ '�:'F - r `.t, .. �? hi ?'�"� =J•cu° ` �,�..Y� �4 i a: . �' _ { - r. ♦C�, Ear / ya, -`� '\{tt•. -; 1 't t -c i •7 }I /• `, i _ ' t .'•.La:Y� r �� r •' a 1*- �'ai.: •�• • ., e,u • •� *�* .�� 1 ` 94.�'\Y ^ �- •� .•.� �•� ; : �L(l 1�''J�a'�-.�uC`y�_�! s=i Ctr t.1 -�!. - _ .x ~ Vii- i ! ..,�•'•�'� , k r�k:}':u.` `u s� ! ; �• ��i�., f. . -0, 1, .. ' �aa -.7 �ti ,F` ' y .. a �� � . / �'' � - S ( y� I l 4'� � �'.. �' T � � � � � =� .. , �c as -- �?.' ••. : ,, �a�\ti •:w.. , ii.��!�_I' -. �• 1��k ��ii�)►r�siG�}i.� / � - �,' T oil L.1 I I I I - �.► _,q r. �`� 4.aYSl':� � i { e �' ,��I �MAAIFliKj.'K._ i �:• a ,�.M,}�� -,-' -- - � aY� t � ti�". ]'��. �-�� �� a s: ��b���l?l��i} l- (�. , f,'+ a ..t i•i:'t - � l - . �•- � . ` " •��`�''.'�'.'., , r��,�� -. ,fir �.;r�• �k- '� ° -,� _ �, • t \ •� �'��.-.,' ..1 •'` \•� �- -- :•�� . . • `" ?•��1 j +3 ' »;'�•t '::.�;• �a`\',•a' .� � � V. a ��f��I ��R ,!� '� �'ay - :�� r +� � �} - � ::a•'." � . -�. X a'�'• "'rte . � : ja+. ;. �•• \L�" � ,; . r � _ � : � .+( ♦ 1., . ". a . ''�.. �,�+hy `�� � �. ! t`�1 V •1,�' i .y r . L` ,•.•:� ' '' :: _'. r` . ,` j '�.N ��tT';':l`���� - . a •T � yi� al -�,�: `' ''� _ ''�•e . ^ 1 ' '.•. \ .� viC� 1_• � - - •a � to Lac 2 '�•� r y , . ��- �• ` ° .\�t 1 t �« _ ti .� t-',�_Y�-r'Ai` L~� r. ���� ��` '~1 `�1! _ �!. �h' y�o t '' ..ti . _ ':�1'` \�, \ � -- _—'Y -^ q - �'yr � r.�� � •t'.'�w�r,�`�# .".,: -?�) "'� °•, �'S'� �,j{[• 4 r •^ ...� `��Y'kr�V -!C w �- i�•�w�rct�. �l- ;�ir•� :}� �'' � t .: -,,� .� ��` � \1 1 '� s c 'k,�' . 'iF « •' ,. - •^ iti a WN �,..� i.. s'l^^ �Jy .. ,Rt • "` ..a 'j-r �. �' t ,.� ! i; ' '� YT �'t� .� �� t+Sula� _r �. �i }� r �� —��4 � ti �:: >� � �r r,��t � � • :• r �� - r '' a+t�'G� : `� w "!^ma �.• • a ^a'1 ) i�y'yC' �� a•;x t M'� �':���t � r�4'�iw � .� . . , {. ...`.° .. •�• � �\ _i,� . � . J �'• - :.fy.i���: ; t��_•LL •:� �,�,.sac�?S�`�Lcjr� - �.e�d. - _`•.._'. v . � \ ._ : j . � - 't�s, .'i� -f' �.�:��; {- �r`a�',t:.��i'aiS. ,a ���s- ti�`•s -- .,..�.• -- - •• i ` i:s r .._,.. i .t, '.•,1t r •• y _ l P IF p P IP1IN I 1p . _ �'��� pop IF ^ F F p � 1pr �lvw� - t _;�- -*- -' - '...._._ .I 1 • -• Jam. - I ��r c s cd S( 9 1,3 ! o ............. 7t C- 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: e ►,� e� u - , %- x- OWNER: ADDRESS: �?� d � c ADDRESS: t Yv tJ �. TELEPHONE (Daytime) _77 8 9 TELEPHONE: 7 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non - conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. I ' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract 'nn .. PROJECT NAME 0 e- t,_1 L 0- LOCATION ^ ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION ca.f c'� A . � � r , T,3 Q. "z -,Iry G ,,,,� c Vj c PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION /� REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 6 0- n it G J N /T v e 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. 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. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. n n 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. I I I n I 0 I I I I I I 0 01 i �Q' / A to --------------- OSED ENTRANCE MONUMENTS I .op �i ANA 5126-, 77) /16t T Cl Xr ! ! / • T ti r • 1 / l NV T ' oloow-m F/V Z Z ` _ s. • \ ^ i ^ I , L NUT ,� wA J _ / • I • • OUTLOT A ` POND . '� /