7. Variance to City Code Regarding Sign Requirements for West Village Heights Center1
CITY OF
y,i' CHANHASSEN
a
PC DATE: 3/2/94
3/16/94
CC DATE 3/28/94
CASE #: 94 -1 Sign Permit
(Variance)
�Q
U
�a
la
1
1
1
1
�Q
H
p
W
Cn
H
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from the 80 square foot maximum
business wall sign and signage on non - street frontage as follows:
1. Byerly's: Permit the signage as proposed on the building elevation.
West 78th Street signage: 5.7 percent of wall area totaling 431 square feet.
72 square feet: Open 24 Hours Fine Foods
55 square feet: Wine Spirits
304 square feet: Byerly's
2. Byerly's: Permit the signage as proposed on the building elevation.
Kerber Boulevard signage: 5.3 percent of wall totaling 376 square feet.
3. Byerly's: Permit the signage as proposed on building elevation.
West signage: 9 percent of wall area totaling 304 square feet.
4. Retail Center:
West elevation: 9 percent of wall area maximum 320 square feet.
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street.
Lot 4 and part of Lot 3, Block 1, West Village Heights 2nd Addition
Actbn 6jr � AdritMl�ttf�
APPLICANT: T. F. James Company (612) 828 -9000 ,
6640 Shady Oak Road Endorses+.
Modrte
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Rejecte
PRESENT ZONING: General Business, BG Date submitted to Commissia
ACREAGE: 13.11 Acres Date summed to Council
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- R -12, High Density Residential, Proposed Oak Pond
Townhouses and West Village Townhouses
S- BG, General Business; Target Store; West 78th Street
E- OI, Office & Institutional; City Hall; Kerber Boulevard
W- BG, General Business, vacant lots; Powers Boulevard
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
' Revised 3/8/94
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' Section 20 -1303 of the city code permits a wall business sign of 15 percent of the building
wall area with a maximum of 80 square feet per business per street frontage.
' BACKGROUND
The applicant has previous applied for and received approval for an Interim Use Permit #93 -2
to rough grade the site for development, Site Plan # 93 -7 approving the layout of the
development for approximately 106,000 square feet of commercial and office space, and
Conditional Use Permit # 93 -1 permitting two structures on one lot. As part of the site plan
' approval, the applicant was required to come back to the city with a sign package proposal
for the entire site.
' ANALYSIS
The following table compares the signage either proposed or approved as part of the
' development against what would be permitted based on fifteen percent of wall area (wall area
and setbacks for each developments are as follows: Chanhassen Bowl - 4,220 square feet and
55 feet, Target - 8,450 square feet and 120 feet, Festival Foods - 5,434 square feet and 183
feet, Byerly's West 78th Street - 7,500 square feet and 335 feet, and Byerly's Kerber
Boulevard - 5,700 square feet and 115 feet).
' Development Name Sianaae & % Wall 15 % of wall
' Chanhassen Bowl 495 sq ft 11.7 633 sq ft
Target 207 sq ft 2.4 1268 sq ft
Festival Foods 262 sq ft 4.8 815 sq ft
Byerly's (West 78th) 431 sq ft 5.7 1125 sq ft
Byerly's (Kerber) 376 sq ft 6.6 855 sq ft
As can be seen from the table, the larger users in this area all either have or request signage
in excess of the 80 square feet permitted by code. If we take an average of the existing
signage for the larger commercial establishments in this immediate area, the city has
permitted an average of 6.3 percent of the wall area for signage. This would translate to a
sign area of 472 square feet and 359 square feet for the south and east elevations of Byerly's,
respectively. These numbers closely approximate the signage being requested by the
applicant. If we were to compare this to the standard of the Chanhassen Bowl, the signage
would be 878 and 667 square feet for the south and east elevations, respectively.
1
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94 '
Page 3
Staff believes that the later standard would be excessive. However, there is merit to ,
providing an average of similar developments' sign area percentages as the guide for
permitting the signage on the Byerly's building. Based on this, staff would recommend that
the variance for the signage square footage proposed for Byerly's be approved.
In regards to the proposed signage on the west elevations of the building, staff cannot see any '
justification for the sign on the west elevation of Byerly's. While this sign may be visible to
the general public prior to the development of the remainder of the center, the sign will only
be seen from the multi- family development to the north after the retail center is fully
developed. However, due to the site design that the city required of the developer which
created a business front on the west elevation of the retail center, staff could support the
provision of signage on this elevation provided code requirements and the provisions of this ,
variance are met.
The current code does not adequately address the larger retailers and therefore some relief '
from the ordinance would be fair and equitable. The existing sign code is tailored to provide
signage for the average retail or office user who leases 800 to 1,000 square feet of space and '
may have a business wall area between 100 and 400 square feet with permitted signage
between 15 and 60 square feet. Staff believes that granting of a variance would be
appropriate in this instance given the larger size of the business building frontage, the greater '
lot area, depth, and width, and the larger building setback being provided by the development.
Granting of the variance would also be consistent with the signage that has been permitted to
other large building users in the area.
FINDINGS
Section 20 -1253 of the City Code states that the city council, upon recommendation of the
planning commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is
shown that by reason of typography 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 and intent of this article. Section 20-
58 states that the city council may grant variances only if the following criteria are met: '
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 '
F
James CompanyByerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Page 4
standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre - existing standards
without departing downward from them meet this criteria. (Emphasis added)
' Finding: The granting of a variance to the sign area is consistent with the signage
that has been approved for the Target Center, Market Square (both which were
' acceptable as PUDs, but are located in a general business district), and Chanhassen
Bowl, all of which are located south of this development and which are comparable
properties. The Code does not appear to adequately address the larger building users
' whose signage, while exceeding the existing code, would be scaled to their business
wall sizes; nor does it address developments which have larger setbacks than are
required under the zoning regulations and where the larger signage would be
1 proportioned to this additional setback. Larger scale retailers are not likely to be
repeated often in the Central Business District.
I 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 for a variance is based is not
applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification because
this property and the proposed development are larger and setback further than other
developments on similarly zoned property. This development is located on a lot that
exceeds the minimum BG lot area of 20,000 square feet twenty -eight times over
(571,071 square feet) and minimum lot width of 100 feet and lot depth of 150 feet by
' factors of nine and four point six, approximately 927 and 693 feet, respectively. As
stated above, larger sign area is consistent with the signage permitted in adjacent
' developments. Proportionately, this signage is smaller than the signage permitted at
the Chanhassen Bowl which is located on property zoned BG, General Business
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 this variance will allow the property owner to have signage
that is proportional to signage approved for similar development in the immediate
area. The purpose of the variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but to make the signage comparable to that
granted for the developments on the south side of West 78th Street.
r.
L�
James CompanyByerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94 '
Update 3/23/94
Page 5
income potential of the parcel of land, but to make the signage comparable to that
granted for the developments on the south side of West 78th Street. '
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self- created hardship.
Finding: The hardship created is due to the fact that City Code does not adequately '
address larger building users nor developments that provide setbacks that are
substantially larger than those required by code. Proportionally, the proposed sign is '
smaller than those allowed for smaller users based on the percentage of the wall 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 or injurious to other ,
land or improvements in the neighborhood. Existing developments currently have
signage that is larger than permitted by code.
f. The ro osed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent '
P P
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 1
property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to ,
adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, substantially diminish or impair property '
values within the neighborhood. The signage that exceeds code requirements will be
on the face of the building and is consistent with signage approved for adjacent
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held two public hearings in their review of this sign variance
request for West Village Center (Byerly's), the first on March 2nd and the second on March
16th. On the March 2nd agenda, there was also a draft ordinance revising the sign
regulations. In reviewing the variance request, the Planning Commission was unable to
separate this sign variance request from the issue of the draft sign ordinance and so a decision
was tabled until March 16. Staff was requested to provide additional details and objective '
criteria for reviewing this variance. Additionally, members of the commission expressed an
interest in having the revised sign ordinance permit signage as proposed for Byerly's.
' At the March 16 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested sign variance
from the perspective of a comprehensive sign package for the entire development being
' proposed on the site as well as specifically addressing the requested variance. Additionally,
the staff report completely eliminated any references to the proposed sign ordinance and
added the Chanhassen Bowl signage to the analysis. The Commissioners also reviewed the
' signage, including pylons and monuments, to see how it related to the other development
along West 78th Street.
In preparing their recommendation, the Planning Commission attempted to redesign the
signage to address sign visibility, compatibility with adjacent development, and
' appropriateness of signage.
Visibility: Commissioners felt that the signage on the east elevation of the building
would only be visible from the city hall complex and the Chanhassen Bank to the east.
Therefore, they recommended that the wall sign be replaced with a monument sign
which would provide visibility from the north and south on Kerber Boulevard, but not
to the east.
Compatibility: Commissioners were specifically concerned about the pylon sign
proposed for West 78th Street. They were concerned about the current and future
streetscape along West 78th Street and the possible proliferation of pylon signs in this
corridor. In an attempt to resolve this conflict, they recommended that the pylon sign
' be reduced in height from twenty to ten feet, which is slightly higher than the eight
foot high monument sign proposed for Target and is slightly smaller than the twelve
foot two inch monument sign proposed for Market Square. (City code permits
' monument signs eight feet in height.)
Appropriateness: Commissioners believe that wall signage should be used exclusively
' for business identification. Therefore, they have recommended that "OPEN 24
HOURS" be eliminated from the signage.
' The Planning Commission accepted staff's six conditions within their motion for approval.
To address the above issues, the Planning Commission has added the following conditions to
staff's recommendation:
r,
James CompanyByerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Update 3/23/94
Page 6
criteria for reviewing this variance. Additionally, members of the commission expressed an
interest in having the revised sign ordinance permit signage as proposed for Byerly's.
' At the March 16 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested sign variance
from the perspective of a comprehensive sign package for the entire development being
' proposed on the site as well as specifically addressing the requested variance. Additionally,
the staff report completely eliminated any references to the proposed sign ordinance and
added the Chanhassen Bowl signage to the analysis. The Commissioners also reviewed the
' signage, including pylons and monuments, to see how it related to the other development
along West 78th Street.
In preparing their recommendation, the Planning Commission attempted to redesign the
signage to address sign visibility, compatibility with adjacent development, and
' appropriateness of signage.
Visibility: Commissioners felt that the signage on the east elevation of the building
would only be visible from the city hall complex and the Chanhassen Bank to the east.
Therefore, they recommended that the wall sign be replaced with a monument sign
which would provide visibility from the north and south on Kerber Boulevard, but not
to the east.
Compatibility: Commissioners were specifically concerned about the pylon sign
proposed for West 78th Street. They were concerned about the current and future
streetscape along West 78th Street and the possible proliferation of pylon signs in this
corridor. In an attempt to resolve this conflict, they recommended that the pylon sign
' be reduced in height from twenty to ten feet, which is slightly higher than the eight
foot high monument sign proposed for Target and is slightly smaller than the twelve
foot two inch monument sign proposed for Market Square. (City code permits
' monument signs eight feet in height.)
Appropriateness: Commissioners believe that wall signage should be used exclusively
' for business identification. Therefore, they have recommended that "OPEN 24
HOURS" be eliminated from the signage.
' The Planning Commission accepted staff's six conditions within their motion for approval.
To address the above issues, the Planning Commission has added the following conditions to
staff's recommendation:
r,
w
L �
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
Update 3/23/94 '
Page 7
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of ten feet. ,
8. The words "OPEN 24 HOURS" shall be eliminated from all signage text. I
9. The east elevation sign be reduced to the word "Byerly's ", similar to the '
monument sign on the 78th Street south elevation and reduced to the same '
height as Target and Market Square. (The intent of this condition is to replace
the wall sign on the east elevation of Byerly's with a monument sign that has
" Byerly's" logo only.) '
10. The square footage for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation
shall account for the removal of the words "OPEN 24 HOURS" from the
signage text. (The intent of this condition is to reduce the square footage of
signage being permitted by the square footage of "OPEN 24 HOURS ".)
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
RECOMMENDATION I
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following motion (Planning
Commission's additional conditions are in bold and underlined):
"The City Council approves the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to
permit a maximum of four hundred thirty-one (431) square feet of sign area on the south
elevation of Byerly's (a variance of 351 square feet) and a maximum of three hundred `
seventy -six (376) square feet of signage on the east elevation of Byerly's (a variance of 296 ,
square feet), approval of signage on the west elevation of the retail center, and denial of the
variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's. This approval is subject to the
following conditions: ,
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be
permitted. '
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistent throughout the development. Consistency in ,
Y g P
signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
James Company/Byerly's
Sign Permit (Variance)
February 24, 1994
Revised 3/8/94
' Update 3/23/94
Page 8
4. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the
Byerly's sign.
' 6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
' 7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of ten feet.
8. The words "OPEN 24 HOURS" shall be eliminated from all signage text.
9. Replace the east elevation wall sign with a monument sign containing
"Byerly's ". The monument height shall be the same as the Target and
' Market Square monuments.
10. The square footage for the signage stated in the body of the
recommendation shall account for the removal of the words "OPEN 24
HOURS" from the signage text.
' 11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
I
I�
n
Attachments:
1. Development Review Application
2. Request for Variance Application Narrative
3. Area Location Map
4. Byerly's Elevation with Signage
5. Pylon Sign Detail
6. Monument Sign Detail
7. Site Landscape Plan
8. Applicant's Exterior Signage Calculations
9. Notice of Public Hearing
10. Notice Mailing List
11. Letter from B.C. "Jim" Burdick dated 2/22/94
12. Planning Commission minutes of 3/2/94
13. Planning Commission minutes of 3/16/94
u
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: L H A R L I E JAM ES OWNER: T 'J AVE Co M PAS "P
(A•nt --MwA CO
ADDRESS: ID S HA'� OA" -OA* ADDRESS:
. Sv1TF- soo
N Da time 02Z 9000 TELEPHONE: F" " 2 1 _7S 3�_ 1
TELEPHONE (Day ) .
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CITY OF C HANHASSEN
2.
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
12. Vacation of ROW/Easements
(612) 937 -1900
Grading /Excavation Permit
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: L H A R L I E JAM ES OWNER: T 'J AVE Co M PAS "P
(A•nt --MwA CO
ADDRESS: ID S HA'� OA" -OA* ADDRESS:
. Sv1TF- soo
N Da time 02Z 9000 TELEPHONE: F" " 2 1 _7S 3�_ 1
TELEPHONE (Day ) .
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11. _ Subdivision
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12. Vacation of ROW/Easements
3.
Grading /Excavation Permit
13. Variance SECMW Z O — 1 2 ,0 3
sv13PA+AE0'kPH. (3)
4.
Interim Use Permit
14. Wetland Alteration Permit
5.
NoOication Signs
15. Zoning Appeal
6.
Planned Unit Development
16. _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
7.
Rezoning
17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost - (Collected after
approval of item)
8.
Sign Permits
18. Consultant Fees
9.
Sign Plan Review
10.
Site Plan Review
TOTAL FEE s �j5 00
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'h" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
k
1
• NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME B`f -LAC S W CSC' V I UA&E
LOCATION 1qG� Si OF— CF 76 SOM�� F L'' gL D ot
�s `dot
LOT I V I �4El6- f'�
LEGAL DESCRIPTION � i � �� W �`� �'�'��
1
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 61 \ji:1A D► ST"CE F120M UIE 7$ l 3o6 - .10C f�:) A
— Si2� fsF SKW GL�.17 ' �G hoc' L N �g0 s�• M AY. NA'/- SrZE iS �
' 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. corder 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 fot 4 omplying -
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. 1 have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owners 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.
1
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid urdess they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approvaVpermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and Vpe priginal document returned to City Hall Records.
p W A-
N
r
V1 r
Z
I�
Signaturl , �lVc -slPE�-T
Signature of Fee Owner
Date
Date
' Application Received on ?� - Fee Paid 1; 5 Receipt No. � 9
V
• The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday pTlor to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malled to the applicant's address.
JAMES I
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE '
SIGN ORDINANCE
Section 20 - -1303 '
Subparagraph 3
"Business wall signs"
West Village Center is seeking a variance on just one of the two '
criteria for wall signs. We can meet the 15% coverage standard
but the 80 sq.ft. maximum size is a hardship given the size of '
the building and the distance from the streets. We believe that
this section of the code does not address the needs of today's
large scale merchandisers. '
This request is consistent with what was allowed for Target and
Market Square. The Target identification exceeds the 80 sq.ft.
maximum but an exemption was allowed as part of the PUD. '
Granting this variance would actually bring our project into
conformity with the other commercial projects in our
neighborhood.
All wall signs on our project will be individual cut out letters '
mounted against a brick background.
The proposed pylon and ground sign will be constructed of the
same brick used in West Village Center and will incorporate some
of the same design themes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Wm. James
T.F. James Company P.O. Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612) 828 -9000
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
i
slid
O /
0
m
?
3�
0
`a
I i 1 1
3 1
WEST VILLAGE CENTER
or B-1
1
OUTLOt B
541 IOI.LL PAR.WG PACES.
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
Eu
NORTH O 50 t00 200 400
<-D- J�
I'I..E,P« W C°:ri"
JAMES
PO bOX _.;f, : : E
DATE 1 -4 -93
I
I
1
� 1
1
1 1
PICHAA DRIVE
I
� J
1
1
1
I i
I '
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
L
F
I
I
I
i
I
I
CITY HALL POST OFFICE
1 0 ❑�> o o
1
WEST 78TH SIREET
TARGET
(OP 1EwN000IOBER,1993)
ft ft w m m r = = = == m= m m s m m
'ill e.:., _1�:�1a Kilt.: D rail on 0
SOUTH ELEVATION
T
V)
z
0
m
z
H
m
J
Q
a
m
m
N
d
rn
d
N
N
J
O
a
Q
W
z
Z
H
r
m
Z
W
NORTH ELEVATION
r ill .mpu iul i nlii tlYn mi Il iii ilm elm �,, inn 1. - — — _ ��• _ N wi INM!w! . Flan
WEST ELEVATION
WEST VILLAGE CENTER C �, t~I MCCOY ARCHI7 El' "1, 1 'U rX I ; fl,lll,I [I IN ME
1 SPCC1FF:a1 lw wn5 f'{KISy1tL !Y MC
19.4 CEDA LMF: PA1111YrAl 1 A I)NUCfl L AR, 1 MO71 N1 l AM
4 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA �) 1„Ie,E Alt 9 1 6 ~ LW IA ,,.,a ANi hp t'[S Of l.gpO ARt Or MI NW.)A
', �J l�) 4J rL1Nti1 V fl C 4) 46121 92/tlS6 1yL�- 7�W, ;lNC ; Ot'�YNA
SCM I. Ill" 111 JAMES 3GiR{4'� a.wpr iu �is.wo Q _ U «ul. «o n.,e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
f
t
PYLON SIGN
SCALE: 1/2% V- 0"
CHIGH NON - ILLUMINATED
BRASS OR BRONZE LETTERS
LLUMINATED SIGN
'MS 286 BLUE
" " = = = m = m = = = s = m m = m =
0 -cc
-
-� d
_OD
O - RICH NOWILLUMINATED
BRASS OR BRONZE LETTERS
-�--- OrNIGH TENANT IDENTIFICATION
BANDS 'ITN a HIGH BACKLIT
ILLUMINATED LETTERS
i
10 -0
MONUMENT SIGN
SCALE: 1/2 "= V- 0�
O
m
1
N
�
W
1 BBB
- LOCNI
N 20 IMKPrK IGNSI
[M 10 [M[R.4DluS1K MANE
waAP MN1C
I
S
' 1
0
1
z
Blb
BBB
1 x elB
B ete .....
i
p "POl rX,N•LPrrn•
CvCNCMT Sn NUBS
w
u
L-
1w
_ _WEST JBTH STREET
z
KEY TO PLANTINGS
KEY NO NAME
S12E SCIEMIF.0 NAME
O ORTH ffi LR
tot' BBB
M )1 HOR1MYpOD MAPI[
+ e
Sl SIIYLINE IO
1 BBB
- LOCNI
N 20 IMKPrK IGNSI
[M 10 [M[R.4DluS1K MANE
waAP MN1C
1 BBB
111 t' BBB rrlwf
t +1Y BBB
th a'
CM CRR+SOH MNG rMP[E
o li wren[ oAF
OS tt euc MLLS SPAOCf
x +11' eBB
x +J� naB
6NIOH BBB ur•
CS H CIXOPA00 ORFTN SIMILE
DRXAMENIM iRCLS l5XR165
p'HrGX eBe N:r•rw.la
RC ZS 1. ... CMB
SC SPAPM fREMB
�e MAP11
AIJ FiaRN✓. Mums Pwr
ci I I UUE.PURIRE
Blb
BBB
1 x elB
B ete .....
L Ir C c . P .
c p
p "POl rX,N•LPrrn•
CvCNCMT Sn NUBS
b DX(S JYXIKR
6 N R
46 NLEP J SI ROAD
.1 BNN)OX JVNKR
p'POI
p'roI
0 Pp xN,ruul uPu
i0 IIIrINLf LP IYAPDSIbI
IMU(D XJ,MJ.BJ)
p'POI
1
PB MANIwCa Ui'DSYNBD•SILL CHLPR,. BYCP1vi[NNY DRIVL N(L•IL
O.O • i O
,I III
�dJ I iy
IIoZoZel �oZ °Zo][ � � �� r �• ��11 ti � � � I �'; O
a
unnouuunnnnonn � � ■nnnnnnnnonmTns. 1 �
� _
, �' 7 '�J.lil%w w w w w wed 'N_1�w w w w wt €1
r-
WEST 70TH STREET
a
SITE
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE
HEIGHTS, 2ND ADDITION, CARVER
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARCEL NO 23.6790040
SITE AREA LsueJm 10 suRVfr v[RRLAIIONI
13.11 ACRES
OWNER/ APPLICANT:
Tr JAMES COMPANY
6640 SHADY OAP ROAD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 33324
1612) 828 -9000
LANDSCAPE PLAN
REVISED JANUARY 13 19941Rnu Ix[r x c <wX[R WRM1w LoD
RE DECEMBER 27 1993 IAIJO wrtR1aN P.PFIw La IYAIO;1
®
RE DECEMBER 7 19931ALO wwDn..IRLn Awnrp4lw.NF,1N I.,,Nar, xLY.A.L�wN1,1
0 m DO 100 230 NORTH
REVISED DECEMBER 2. 1993 1NMYXLNM WANBMRV w.IPP...L IwLS.A000nr 1RLES1
REVISED NOVEMBER 18, 19931wvn[res�Mw11MP. aXDnIPwI
REVISED NOVEMBER B, /9931wvnL LRNFPa;1suE1wxnlsoNXLRIN.Iw,v[I
SCALE " -5d -o
DALE NOVEMBER 1, 1993
3
WEST VILLAGE CENTER
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
111
C I L >
v °
JAMES ioDi it niii oiBS
WI
MCCOV ARCIII'll
1948 A OAR LAPS ESOTA PAftW 5
M 12) 8 POLI5, MINNESOTA 5341e
(612) e27 -es4e
[CEFITIFYI
MOON NfPOEIYM
ON C MY BLES PREPARED If ME
OR WOE AFICHIU LIHI I AM
AREGSTERED TA T AE
THE ST ATE F " NWSC RA
'E
.1. NO
A
" w = = = = = = m r m = = = = m m m r
Exterior Signage Calculations
West Village Center
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: All exterior signs which identify enants in the shopping fy PP g center shall consist of
individual cut -out letters, however, for purposes of these calculations the signage is
measured by the exterior dimensions of an imaginary rectangle which would frame and t
contain the cut -out letters.
South Elevation: '
1. Byerly's has a south wall area of 7500 sq.ft. The signage proposed would total 431 ,
sq.ft. or 5.5% of the total wall area. This is determined by using 36 total lineal feet of 24
inch letters (Open 24 Hours Fine Foods) , 22 feet of 30" letters ( Wine Spirits), and a
Byerly's logo of 304 sq.ft. Code would allow 1125 sq.ft. or 14 signs each containing 80 sq.ft. '
2. The adjacent retail area has a south wall area of 7924 sq.ft. Code would allow 1188 sq.ft.
of signs or 15 signs at 80 sq.ft. We are proposing an 80 sq.ft. maximum for each sign and
will meet or exceed the code.
East Elevation of Byerly's: '
Total wall area is 5700 sq.ft. and code would allow 855 sq.ft. of signage. We are proposing
376 sq.ft. of signage, which is just over 6% whereas code allows 15 %.
West Elevation:
1. At Byerly's, the total wall area is 3372 sq.ft. We are proposing fit'{ sq.ft. which is
q % of the total wall area.
2. The West elevation of the adjacent retail area consists of 3520 sq.ft. total area. We are
proposing 3?_0 sq.ft. of signs which will meet or exceed the code. '
C
1
11
f
1
t
1
Developer: Charlie James
Location: Lot 4, Block 1, West Village
Heights 2nd Addition
STE
lop
f
SUSAN
PARK i
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is requesting a variance to the City Code regarding the sign
requirements for West Village Heights Center, located on Lot 4, Block 1, West Village
Heights 2nd Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 17,
1994.
,.
- - •� ^; gip• �; �
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
:.� ;; "'' Pp`
t
Wednesday, March 2, 1994 7:30 P.M.
Location
City Hall Council Chambers
2
_. 7
690 Coulter Drive
Project: West Village Heights Center
BG
Sign Variance
f
1
t
1
Developer: Charlie James
Location: Lot 4, Block 1, West Village
Heights 2nd Addition
STE
lop
f
SUSAN
PARK i
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is requesting a variance to the City Code regarding the sign
requirements for West Village Heights Center, located on Lot 4, Block 1, West Village
Heights 2nd Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 17,
1994.
West Village Partners Independent School Dist. Mithun Enterpr. Inc.
1443 Utica Ave. #240 1700 Highway 41 900 Wayzata Blvd.
Mpls., MN 55416 -1571 Chaska, MN 55318 Wayzata, MN 55391
State Bank of Chanhassen
680 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Market Square Associates
3503 Maplewood Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
B.C. Burdick
426 Lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dayton Hudson Corp.
Dept T -862
777 Nicollet Mall
Mpls., MN 55402
Festival Foods
Bob King
7900 Market Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Eckankar
Box 27300
New Hope, MN 55427
Dean Johnson Contruction
8984 Zachary Lane
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Principals In Minnesota's Fastest
Growing Area g WA Brian H. Burdick
B.C. "Jim" Burdick
426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474 -5243
FAX (612) 474 7543
February 22, 1994
Chanhassen Planning Cam Lission
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: West Village Heights Center, Sign Variance
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Due to a pressing conflict we cannot be present at the March 2, 1994
meeting pertaining to the sign variance for the West Village Heights
Center.
It is our feelings that the presence of Byerly's will add a significant
amount of class to the City of Chanhassen. As neighboring property
owners we would like to ask that you look upon their request for a sign
variance in as favorable a manner as possible.
Cordi ly yours,
C. "JIM" BURDICK
H. BURDICK
1
DECEIVED
E 1994
■ "Success in business is purely a matter of luck.
If you don't believe us, just ask any of the losers." CITY OF CHANHASSEt
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
6. Marking of handicapped stalls as per the Building Official's letter dated January 31, 1994. 1
All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts who were not present to
vote, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: I
CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE
SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS CENTER, LOCATED ON
LOT 4. BLOCK 1. WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff?
Ledvina: The situation on the west wall of the building, why. First of all, does that �.
represent, their request, does that represent a variance?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So under normal situations, as far as the ordinance is concerned. ,
Generous: They would get no signage. It says street frontage.
Ledvina: They have to have street frontage, okay.
Generous: In reviewing this we looked at that and as part of the site plan we made them
create a business ... on the west end of the retail center and that's why they're requesting that.
They want to have actual frontage for the building so when people park out front, they can I
know that they're walking into the, engineering design ... what have you.
Mancino: So we don't have street frontage there. Now according to what we have, Section
20 -1303, it says for a wall business sign, it says one wall business sign shall be permitted per
street frontage for each business occupant within the building. So I'm looking here at the
south elevation and I see three different signs. I see Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours, I see a ,
Byerly's sign and I see a Wine and Spirits. And according to our ordinance, they're allowed
to have one sign.
Generous: Well the way we've been doing that is to aggregate the total square footage as it...
for that building.
5
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: But that's not one sign. There's still three signs. It's in three different spots.
Generous: It's in three different locations. But we've been treating it as if that, they have
their one sign. Instead of, they can stack all that information up in one spot, and if they met
the code requirements.
t Mancino: If they meet 80 square feet.
Farmakes: Current code is 80 square feet.
Generous: Yes.
j Farmakes: The point she's making is that there's auxiliary information provided within that,
other than identifying the store. So the question is, if you allow that as a variance, not only
are you allowing a variance for the total cap of the signage name but you're allowing in
addition to that, Wines and Spirits. I think the precedent that was used was to allow the word
Pharmacy on Target. The question goes back, I think in the current sign ordinance that we'll
be reviewing, there was a comment on there about what constitutes additional advertising to a
sign. For instance, Cold Beer and Hot Dogs.
Mancino: Or Fresh Fruit. I mean what are we going to have on these buildings?
Farmakes: And where does that constitute an additional sign or in addition to or within that
cap? The criteria we seem to be using here is Target, which is a PUD correct?
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: And so is Market Square.
Farmakes: So is the criteria that what we gave them, we give Byerly's or what is the
objective?
Generous: Well to provide them an equitable relief for their signage is basically it. They
believe that they're doing the same thing as the other two developments. However they
don't, they just didn't do PUD. They're doing, meeting everything else in the code as far as,
they want to have comparable signs.
Mancino: Well they're doing more than some of the other developments. For instance,
they're going to have a 20 foot pylon sign right on 78th Street which is going to give them a
lot more visibility than any other commercial business on 78th. There is no pylon signs 20
6
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
feet high for Target on 78th. There's no 20 foot tall pylon sign for Market Square. For the
Chanhassen Bank, etc. So I think they have a lot of visibility with the pylon sign added to
what they've got.
Farmakes: The other criteria of a PUD is that the city gets something in return for allowing
an applicant to go over or get variances from existing city codes. I'm wondering what, it
would seem the purpose here is that Byerly's is an oversized building. Large 60,000 square
feet.
Scott: Well the total development's 109.
Farmakes: The original signage I think, Charlie that you had, wanting to know why there
was a cap in there. Percentage. The issue had to do with stores that are smaller getting over
sized signs that are as wide as the store front. Where you'd have a disproportionate amount
to where essentially the store is covered because of signs. The cap of 80 square feet I think
is pretty long standing, isn't it Ladd? That was on the existing ordinance.
Mancino: Well 80 is for the general business district. 65 is for the CBD so it's even smaller
in the central business district.
Farmakes: Yeah, but what I'm saying is that isn't part of the revision. We didn't reduce
that. That's been an historical cap. I guess a precedent was set then when Target was built.
Conrad: No, the bowling alley.
Farmakes: Filly's?
Conrad: Yeah. That's a huge sign. I think it's an ugly sign.
Farmakes: What criteria did they, that came under a PUD or was that conditional use or what
was that?
Conrad: That came under criteria of visibility from Highway 5 and I'm not sure how that
happened to tell you the truth. It sure fit within the 15% of wall area but it sure is over 80
square feet. So there are precedents. We obviously don't have an ordinance that treats
different sized buildings adequately. I think dwelling on the 80 square feet is sort of dwelling
on something that's not equitable.
Scott: Well I've got a question for you. In the findings section, we talk about that strict
compliance would cause a hardship. And under Section 20 -58 it says that the City Council
7
t
1
P
1
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
may grant variances only if the following criteria are met and one of the them is the literal
enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship as defined as undue hardship means
if the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of size, fiscal surroundings, shape or
topography. And I don't particularly agree with that in this particular case. I think we would
all agree that the fact that there's a Byerly's in Chanhassen, it's a destination in and of itself.
Not like on Highway 61 where there's 7 car dealerships competing for mind share. So at
least in my particular view of the world, I wouldn't consider foisting this ordinance on
Byerly's to be creating any hardship whatsoever. And the other commissioners have talked
i about some of the other issues but that's the one that kind of stuck in my mind. I had some
difficulty seeing why that would be a hardship. So I'd like you to develop that, maybe
educate me a little bit.
Farmakes: Well the comment that I'd like to make here before he answers that I think Ladd
is right ... several building fronts is what you're talking about here. The question that I was
looking at and maybe there isn't a precedent that's used for buildings of that scale. The cap
really didn't deal with buildings of that magnitude in this town. But part of the question that
Nancy seemed to start to answer is what in addition to that and how many do you duplicate?
Do you use part of the ordinance from the 80 cap and then if you enlarge the sign, do you
still use part of that allowing an additional amount of the signs? I don't have a problem
personally with looking at that again to look at buildings of this scale. I don't have a
problem even that Byerly's is projecting to the highway by a larger sign of that scale but I
would question how many times it's duplicated and if for instance you have the same size
sign projecting to the east coming down 78th Street where you drive within a few hundred of
the building to get by it. I question that. Whether or not that needs to be duplicated again to
that scale. So that's my.
L Scott: Okay. Are there any more comments? This is a public hearing. May I have a
motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino: So moved.
Scott: Actually we should hear from the applicant first. Excuse me. Mr. James.
Charlie James: So I'm late this evening. I thought I was further on the agenda.
�Y g g g
Scott: You're on time. You're here. Please state your name and your address.
Charlie James: Yes, my name is Charlie James. I'm with T.F. James Company of Eden
Prairie. I guess first of all I'd like to stress that the issue under discussion this evening is of
major, major importance to us and we're really here tonight because I believe of an ambiguity
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
in Section 20 -1303, Subparagraph 3 of your current ordinance. And we can and will meet all
aspects of your current code on the entire project with the exception of the Byerly's logo.
The retail strip will be in conformity. We're not asking for anything there. The pylon that
you mentioned is totally in conformity with the ordinance plus I'll point out that Target's
pylon is 36 feet tall and contains 144 square feet of sign area where our's has 64 square feet
so their sign is 2 1/2 times as large as our sign area. 16 feet taller but we're not asking for
that. Well live with your ordinance on that. The monument that's proposed is totally in
conformity with your ordinance and it was redrawn to be. And I guess we, when I read the
code and having had an analogous experience to this up in Forest Lake, Minnesota. They had
a code like this that said you could have so many square feet but no individual sign could be
bigger than, I forget what it was. It was something like this so we went through and said,
look it. Under your code we can put 70 -80 square foot, or we can put 7 -80 or whatever the
size square foot signs they are on the building but no one sign can be bigger than you know,
whatever it was. We can distribute this out but no individual sign can be as big as the sign
that we're proposing so potentially we could put 7 -80 square foot signs or whatever it was,
and have 500 square feet. All we're asking for is 200 square feet. And they realized that
they had a problem in their ordinance and we were allowed to do what we wanted to do and
they since have changed their ordinance. And I have to say that when I read this ordinance
and coming from that experience, maybe that was too fresh in my mind but I will refer you
here to the wording in this and it says, under paragraph 3. First of all it says, they're
distinquishing here between the pylon and monument. First of all there's a mixture of the
plural and singular within this paragraph. It says, wall business signs. But then it says, one
wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage. And then it says, the total of all
wall mounted sign area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall on which,
plural, the signs are mounted. And then it says, no individual sign shall exceed 80 square
feet. My reading of this, the mixture of the plural and the singular and the use of the word
individual is that the code was intended that no individual sign would be bigger than 80
square feet but that you were allowed the 15% of the wall area. There's that mixture of the
plural and singular here. I'll further refer you to the staff report that was written and
subsequently adopted by this body regarding the Target. Here's a picture by the way of their
36 foot high, 144 foot up here. That's 144. What we're talking is 64 square foot in our total
sign and they've got 144 feet just up here. This is in your staff report that was done for the
Target.
Farmakes: You're aware that the Target was a PUD?
Charlie James: Yes I am.
Farmakes: And that there's a difference in zoning.
t
�1,
LJ
-P
9 1
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Charlie James: I'm very much aware of that. That's going to be a point I'm going to make.
Farmakes: Well you're comparing the two back and forth and I just want to make sure that
you knew that.
Charlie James: Right. And I'm going to address also the issue of, someone raised the issue
1 of the trade off and what are we getting here. Under the signage report that was done for
Target, again there's this ambiguity in your signage that says, findings. The staff is proposing
' one free standing pole sign and on and on and then subparagraph 2. Wall signs are permitted
on no more than two street frontages. Then they say the total of all wall area sign display
areas shall not exceed 15% of the total wall area. Or of the total building wall upon which
the signs, plural, are mounted. So this is consistent I believe with our interpretation of what
the code is. So I don't want to be in a position here of being argumentative. What I'm
trying to suggest this evening is that you've got a problem with your code and that should be
addressed. And I don't want tonight, I don't want what we're presenting here tonight to be in
any way a precedent or maybe the more proper word is andecedent for what you're going to
be considering later this evening. What I would like is for you to look at what we're
proposing here for the Byerly's and look at this as a unique, individual case. It's not, let's
admit. We've got a problem with the ordinance. The ordinance is ambiguous. With Target
they talked about 15% of the total area of the building upon which the signs are mounted. So
let's get beyond that and can we just review this on a case by case basis of what we're trying
to do here and. Well we've got this. I guess within the context of what we're proposing here
and the scale of the building, I would submit that what we're proposing in the way of signage
here is not excessive and it is attractive. I think there's some other factors here that need to
be mentioned. I think one of the things that there were some numbers in the staff report that
were calculated in a different manner than which we calculated our numbers. We were told
that we had to draw a rectangle around the total area and I understand that when they
calculated the sign for instance for Festival, they did not do that. They kind of went around
the edge of that in preparing the square footages that were in your report. Again an ambiguity
here. We're penalized because first of all this is cursive and so if you throw a rectangle, you
have to go all the way up to the top here. That's how we were told you know that this thing
was figured. When in fact an argument could be made that you could just kind of outline
1 this sign area and this area in here being about approximately 16 feet, if we came over here
and then dropped down to this area which is about 8 feet, it becomes 200 square feet instead
of the 321 square feet that would be made if we basically put a border around the whole
t thing. I understand that you're considering a new code. Unfortunately I was traveling and I
wasn't in a position to interact with staff and to comment on what they were proposing. I
guess we just simply can't abide with the later alternative in there. And I don't, I feel that
the table they came up with there, and those numbers are just as arbitrary as anything else. I
1
10
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
mean why 3 %? Why 4 %? I guess what I would prefer is that we address here tonight is to
look at what we're trying to prevent here and I don't think that what we're doing here, I have
a very strong vested interest in this being the best possible project and a lot of thought went
in to a lot of this and I guess what I would like is can we look at this particular project and
not rewrite the code around me. In other words, can we work with recognizing that we have
existing ambiguity here within the code and then say okay, Charlie. You get a variance from
that code. He's not asking for a variance in the pylon. He's not asking for a variance for the
monument. Those elements are less than what's been done elsewhere. I'm not asking for a
variance in the retail space but I'm asking for consideration for this particular layout. And I
guess as another thing I guess I'd say is, as I mentioned we're penalized because of the
cursive nature. It's not a neat block of their logo but also another aspect of this you have to
keep in mind is that their letters are blue. As a matter of fact, this whole element of the
building, so it's more or less size and proportion to accommodate the sign and the concern is
the visibility from Highway 5. Target's out there on Highway 5 and has the 36 foot high
whatever. And blue doesn't read well at night. So that's another factor that it's not a glaring
white or a yellow or a red. It's something that kind of softly dissipates into the night air so
that's a concern based on, this was input directly from the President of Byerly's based on
other locations that they've had and the studies that they've done on visibility of their signage
from distances. And that relates to what was said tonight about 65 square foot in the central
business district as opposed to 80 square feet in the highway and general business and I
again, I think that that's why the first alternative that was being proposed or rationale for
your consideration Ladd this evening is better because I think the reason that 65 square feet
downtown is because the buildings are close ... and where the buildings are placed. And the
code when they referred to 65 square feet downtown, I think there was a recognition that the
buildings are placed closer to the curb there. That the cars are closer to the street. So I
think, and then as you get further out from town, you're distances away so I think that's part
of that rationale and I think that that rationale fits in better with what was the first alternative
here that was proposed this evening. But again, now I'm starting to discuss what you're
going to be considering here later this evening and I guess I wish we could focus on here.
As far as a PUD and what the City's getting in return here. I guess I'm emphasize again that
we worked with staff for over 6 months. Probably 7 or 8 months before we ever even came
to you folks and everything we tried to do here is consistent with everything on this side of
the street. City Hall's brick and has the same sort of, and the Fire Station, the post office, the
bank and so everything that we are doing here is kind of consistent with this side of the
street. We came in here originally. Target had 5% of their parking lot landscaped as part of
the PUD requirement when your code had nothing. We were told that that was something
that was going to be adopted as the law or code. The 5% of the parking lot. I came in here
right off the bat with 8% in. our parking lot and we subsequently, thanks to Mr. Wing's input
and elsewhere, I think we ended up closer to 10%. And I think we're trying to bring a high
quality project here. A high standard of design. We've got $88,000.00 at last count in plant
i
ri
1
1
r
11 1
1
1
t
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
material. Not the installation. Not the irrigation. Not the sod. Just in material in the bucket
on this job. Which is way far and above what's required. We came in here as a permitted
use on a permitted piece of property and we still tried to work with you all. And tried to
improve it and do better than what was required. The only variance that we were asking for
in that project was necessitated by your own Highway 5 corridor study that said that you
wanted a detached buildings and broken up. We've got a project here that's 600 feet long.
We tried to articulate the ... Put a lot of money into different various elements. And the one
thing we need help on is the sign. So I guess it is important to us and I would respectfully
request that you look at this and look at it in terms of the total design of the project and grant
us some relief from the ambiguity of your code.
Scott: Good. Are there any comments or questions for the applicant from staff?
Commissioners?
Mancino: Charlie did you provide a drawing with an 80 square foot Byerly's so we could
see the difference?
Charlie James: I'm sorry.
Mancino: Did you provide staff with an 80 square foot Byerly's logo. One that would fit in
the ordinance so we could see the scale of an 80 square foot one in there?
Charlie James: No I didn't but I'll tell you, you've got a building 300 feet long here. That's
2 sheets of plywood. Okay, approximately. And as I said, this element, we read, when we
read the ordinance, we thought. What we're showing here is well below 15% of the wall
area so we thought there was this glitch or snaffu in your ordinance that, as I indicated
earlier, that we've run into elsewhere. So we thought well gee whiz. The 80 square feet
thing is obviously something that wasn't contemplated here but we're well below the 15% of
the total wall area here. What's shown here I believe in your report here.
Generous: Nancy, if you look at the Open 24 Hours and Fine Food section, that's almost 80
square feet. Between the two of them.
Mancino: Between the two of them?
Charlie James: It becomes miniscule and there's no point putting it on there because you
can't read it from the street. You know I mean this.
Mancino: Well the point of putting it on there is for us to be able to see the difference and
why it doesn't work.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Charlie James: No I meant as far as 80, I'm sorry. Right now, our interpretation of the code
originally was that in any event we're allowed 15% of the total wall area. What we're
showing you right here is 5.5% of the wall area. So we didn't anticipate a problem. We
were asked by the President and CEO of Byerly's, has stayed out of many of my negotiations
with Mr. Meyers. I remember specifically the one time he stuck his head in the door was on
this issue of signage and this is a big deal with them because they've had problems with the
blue signs at night and they're open 24 hours and this sort of thing and it's a real hot spot
with him. And so in proportioning the building and everything, we designed some of these
elements to accommodate that. And it's not an after thought. It was a fore thought and it
was based on our misinterpretation of an ambiguous code. So I'm sorry, no we did not.
That's my typical long winded.
Farmakes: Your Edina location is how many square feet?
Charlie James: I'm sorry?
rry
Farmakes: Your Edina location for Byerly's. How many square feet?
John Meyers: 18. St. Louis Park is 19. Ridgedale is probably 16.
Farmakes: How many signs in Edina do you. have on the face front of the building?
John Meyers: On the face? This is what we have on most of the stores. We don't have,
some of the stores we have restaurant. Edina we don't have wine and spirits because we
don't have wine and spirits. Fine foods is something we're.
Farmakes: The primary sign of Byerly's, is that on the area facing, would that be 70th?
John Meyers: That store has, I don't know if that store has a sign on 70th.
Farmakes: I recall it just has one facing France. Byerly's.
John Meyers: No. No. There's supposed to be, I'm not sure how big the building is facing
south. There's a sign on the south side of that building. I'm not sure if there's one on the
north side.
Farmakes: Is there a frontage street there though?
Charlie James: I do know that.
13
1
I�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
John Meyers: What you see if you're coming north, if you're coming north.
Farmakes: Is that a monument or is that...?
John Meyers: No...
j Charlie James: I do know that Mr. Harberts specifically said that one that is on Ridgedale is
larger than this one but it's mounted over here. They have this big wall on their drive thru so
they have a much higher wall area to mount it on. So actually the sign that's on Ridgedale is
larger but it was put over here and we didn't want to do that. We wanted to have these
arches here that, and they don't have that condition there. They don't have arches here. This
is a blank masonry wall.
John Meyers: Well we didn't want a blank wall there either. We wanted to put a feature in
that carries it through the whole center so when you put the feature in, you carry it through
the whole center...
Charlie James: We have a visual aid here. This is 10 by, this is 80 square feet.
Scott: No problem.
Charlie James: You love it right?
Mancino: We can still read it.
Farmakes: What is the accumulative amount of square footage you take in Byerly's and you
take in Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours.
Charlie James: 431 square feet, or 5.5% of the wall area.
John Meyers: Of which, under the code, if we stuck with 15%. If we stuck with 15% and
just put Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's, Byerly's.
Farmakes: I understand that but the code has always had a cap on it so.
John Meyers: If you take 15%.
Farmakes: So to take part of an ordinance and you said the criteria is.
Charlie James: It says no individual sign but then as it...
1 14
fl
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
1
Farmakes: But it could be more than one sign.
Charlie James: Exactly.
Farmakes: Let me explain. It could be a logo. It could be logo and type. It could be Fine
Foods or Open 24 Hours. It could not even have the name of the store if it chose not to.
But there's a cap of the amount of square footage that can be used. It's up to the store owner
how he chooses to use that cap. Some stores wish to add additional information other than
their name. The question then becomes, is it an identification or an advertisement.
Charlie James: Well there's some argument to be made here that we have more than one use
in this building. We have the supermarket. We have the wine and spirits. We have a
restaurant. We have all these different businesses going on under one roof, which is
somewhat analogous to Target and Target having a pharmacy.
Farmakes: I understand your argument. I think that the bottom line is that you would like
that sign to be readable from Highway 5, correct?
John Meyers: Correct.
Farmakes: Okay. That is facing south. The elevation that we're looking at now. There's
additional signage being requested on the face fronts that face east and the other one you said
was not included or?
Mancino: The west one.
Farmakes: ...of what we started out with there on that elevation drawing.
Generous: It's in your packet. The bottom would be the west elevation.
Farmakes: Where it says 4 next to it?
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: And that's being withdrawn?
Generous: No, we're recommending that that not be approved.
Farmakes: That that not be there. I
15
1
I
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino:. Because it doesn't, frontage is not on the street, right?
Farmakes: The purpose then of the monument sign then is. Is the question of signs I think
in relevance, one way to look at this is from what distance do you consider a sight line to be
adequate for your store. And I'm just looking at this from your point of view. You
obviously want to be read from Highway 17, Highway 5 and what is the purpose of the sign
to the east? How far is it that you would like to be seen?
L7
John Meyers: The sign to the east?
Farmakes: Yes. It would be the sign west of City Hall.
John Meyers: You're really, at the point where you get to the stop light, at that point you'll
start to be able to see from the elevation, the one that you've got, from the intersection. Just
up off the road. You should start to be able to see this sign as you probably just get through
the intersection.
Farmakes: It would seem to me that the purpose of the sign, besides the sight lines being
different distances away say from Highway 5, because you have to be a certain distance
away. A minimum distance. Those cars are potentially going by at 50 mph. The one from
the east, somebody's coming by at 25 mph.
John Meyers: Hopefully.
Farmakes: Well, hopefully. It seems as if there's a different size of signs. What I'm trying
to get a handle on here, other than arguing the technicalities of your interpretation of the
ordinance. There are parts of the ordinance but whether we're looking at a different zone at
one time and half of a zone of another, I think there are some arguments to come back and
say that you're being selective in you're interpreting what applies to your store and what
doesn't. In comparing Target, obviously you're aware, and you say you're aware that that's a
different zone and you understand that it's a PUD.
Charlie James: I do but what... building could have cost another $7.00 a square foot and
got....
Farmakes: ...I understand that.
Charlie James: I've got more landscaping than they do.
16
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: I understand that but do you understand how ordinances are set up? We can't
willy nilly disregard part of an ordinance when we're discussing something and how we're
interpreting it. It doesn't mean that we can't relook at something to work something that
solves this problem. What I'm saying is that, based on your parts of your arguments that I
don't buy into personally but...
John Meyers: I don't understand what you're disagreeing over.
Farmakes: Comparing for instance the sizes that are allowed for Target. Target is a different
zone. And I know that both of you are fully well aware that there's a difference between
PUD and what you are applying for.
John Meyers: I'm not even arguing the Target sign.
Farmakes: Okay, but that's part of the argument that I've before me. In comparing, and I
understand the criteria that was used for Target. I'm not arguing the scale of the building and
some of the rationale that you're using. There however are some other things other than the
size of the sign for Byerly's sign here, the additional signage and how that accumulates and
how that is reflected to how other applicants are treated here. And we have to consider that
in how we handle this. And I think in the past, and said you acknowledged that, I think
that's how we have to treat this discussion. We have to do this fairly and I would admit and
agree that obviously when these older ordinances were put on the books, nobody envisioned
the buildings of this size coming in here. And primarily the cap and the percentage was to
keep small store fronts from becoming over sized. Where the entire wall of the building is a
sign. So far these huge buildings have been PUD's and have been handled as separate issues.
The signage. Where you're getting 100,000 square foot building and you're looking at the
signage issues as a PUD that can be handled as a separate issue. Your applying under
existing signage ordinances that apply to a small store. And if we have to hold them to that,
we also have to hold you to that irregardless of the size of the building.
Charlie James: But that's where the hardship comes in.
Farmakes: I understand the hardship and I understand the rationale for relooking at that
again. There's additional baggage on here though that I would like to discuss because this
also conflicts with some of the other issues that we have held other store owners to.
Applicants. In supplementing signage with advertising. It goes beyond identification. There
is precedent I think for the Open 24 Hours. The Fine Foods, it seems to me that.
John Meyers: That's a trademark, just so you know. That's a trademark which the Byerly's
own. Which we used to use in the Twin Cities as we feel it's important to use out here
17
n
1
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
I because we're going into a new market and trying to expand farther out.
Farmakes: I'm familiar with trademark law and I know that the words Fine Foods are not the
trademark.
John Meyers: The logic behind.
Farmakes: It could be added onto Byerly's but the words fine foods is a generic.
John Meyers: But part of the Byerly's name and actually it's trademark, one of those logos
is Byerly's Fine Foods.
Farmakes: Okay. And what I'm saying is, if Fine Foods was underneath Byerly's, that could
be construed as part of the trademark. Where it's several hundred feet away, one would have
to interrupt...
Charlie James: One of the designs had that and it was too cluttered.
John Meyers: We've done it on both sides but we had to make the facade even bigger in that
Y g
area which... defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do.
Mancino: It's a positioning line that goes with the name Byerly's.
John Meyers: Exactly.
Farmakes: Except it's not with the name Byerly's ... And the question of Wines and Spirits,
I'm not sure how, I'm not sure how, does the city consider that a separate store?
Mancino: No it's not. It's part of Byerly's.
Farmakes: But legally, does it have to be a separate store? It holds a liquor license doesn't
it?
Charlie James: There's a part of the store where we're being required to close that off so it
can be.
John Meyers: Separate operating leases.
Charlie James: It will have it's own cash register. It has an entrance where during the times
that the supermarket is open you can go into the liquor store but when the hours are past for
18
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
a liquor store to be open, there's doors in there that close that off so you're not able to access
it. That shuts down. Those personnel leave.
John Meyers: It's no different than a liquor store inside a mall. I'll give you a perfect
example. Go down to TH 4 and TH 5, to Driskill's. You walk out of Driskill's store into
the mall space and the first tenant is the Eden Prairie municipal liquor. When you're inside
our store ... stores is to make that side of the store basically a mall. You come into the store.
You go to the right. If you've been in Ridgedale, and you walk down a corridor. Down that
corridor is the post office. Down that corridor is ice cream And down that corridor is the
restaurant. Down that corridor is the liquor store. I mean we opearte it separately.
Farmakes: It doesn't have a separate entrance ... it only has separate entrance. Separate
checkout.
John Meyers: Right. You can't get into the Wine and Spirits shop and take it into the
store...
Mancino: But you can get into the Wine and Spirits through the Byerly's grocery store?
Charlie James: But only because they have parcel pick -up and you don't have to carry your
bags so you have to pay for your groceries there. Then you can walk into a separate opening,
into the liquor store and they have a separate personnel and separate check out there. But
once the State laws come into effect and they say you've got to be closed at 6:00 or whatever
it is, there are these bifold doors or whatever that seal that whole area off from the inside of
the store, plus the outside door is locked and that portion of the store is closed.
John Meyers: It's a separate legal entity as well. Somebody that operates the liquor store is
a separate entity from Byerly's.
Farmakes: How would the City interpret that? Is that a separate store?
Generous: The way they describe it, I believe it would be separate. As far as our review of
it, we aggregated everything as part of one wall, business wall.
Farmakes: Can you check on that. See how that would be interpretted.
Scott: I think what we need to do now is to ask for input from members of the public. Are
there any members here of the public who would like to speak on this particular issue?
Seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing please.
19
71
J
d
1J
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the ublic hearing. All voted in favor and
P g
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Any Y comments from the commissioners. M initial comment here is that it seems like
we really don't have a good handle on what to do with this particular. Do you agree with
me? Based upon the ordinance that we have to deal with the issue at hand. Personally I'm
not comfortable acting on that at this point in time but if you all are, please speak up.
Conrad: I'm curious. What people think about visually is this offensive? What we're
looking at?
Farmakes: I personally don't think it's offensive but I think it is a weakness in our ordinance
in dealing with these size buildings. I don't know how many more of these we're going to
see.
Conrad: So if we could develop a sign ordinance that would allow that, would we all kind of
' say, that's probably reasonable?
Mancino: No.
Farmakes: I think that there's a problem with the additional amount of signage. And how
we treat other applicants. That...
Conrad: So you're uncomfortable that they're saying wine and spirits would be too generic,
you wouldn't want to see that on other buildings?
Farmakes: If it's a separate entity, I think we talked about that with the hotel and does that
constitute a new business. Does new signage come into play? I think that's another issue of
weakness in our signage ordinance.
Conrad: Don't you feel that that's instructive though? Don't you think a food store is
' different than restaurant?
Farmakes: Yes. I do. I think that there's a viable argument there. I don't think that it's too
much signage for the amount of square footage that we're talking about. But I do think that
there's precedent problems that if we ignore what currently is on the books, and how we treat
other people, that's going to create a problem.
Mancino: I'd like to build on that also and say, I mean what are we going to have a sign
people can say, open 7 days a week or open from 7:00 to 8:00? And that's where I'm having
20
i
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
w' n 24 Hours Fine Foods. I don't have a problem with the 's B erl
a problem ith the Open o and p y y
and the Wine and Spirits because I think it is a different entity. My other concern is, as we
get bigger with these signs, proportionately to the building, are we just going to have box
buildings that act as billboards all over? And the signage on them is dust going to read as a
big billboard. And is that what we want and is that what we want in our downtown? Do we
want signage in our downtown to be able to be read from all over? From a mile away. From
a half a mile away. I mean at what point.
Farmakes: Issues of scope and I think duplication. As I said before. I think that in looking
at advertising, the sign to be read from Highway 5 from a building of that scale, I would
think perhaps that's reasonable to an extent. However, the assignment for a read from
Highway 17, which is a different speed limit and 78th Street, which is also a different speed
limit, are two different assingments and I wouldn't see that sign duplicated three times. So
again I'm not sure what we hold the hotel development to. What we hold Market Square. I
realize some of these are PUD's and some of them are not. I think we have to define the
difference of what we're doing there because what we hold some of these smaller store
owners to, we should be consistent on how we approach that or enact an ordinance that deals
with this as part of the signage package that we're looking at here.
Scott: Jeff, where would you draw the line inbetween the "small store" and the Byerly's?
Farmakes: Well the city tries to do some of that on scale. However, I think this still needs
some work from the ordinance that we're looking at. The old signage ordinance also did
some scale work but it had the cap. It kept the 80 foot cap which I'm not sure how relevant
that was at the time. That they ever envisioned a 100,000 square foot building here.
Scott: How do you, based upon coming to some sort of a decision this evening, what are
your thoughts?
Farmakes: I think that perhaps we should get together with staff and discuss either how this M
would be incorporated into the new ordinance or how it would be interpreted in the old. But
I think we should be consistent on how we handle this. I
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: This is asking to be inconsistent. I don't think what they're asking is
unreasonable if it can be done with how we've acted consistently in the past.
Scott: Would you like to make a motion to that effect.
21 1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
I Farmakes: I'll make a motion to table this.
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: Until that can be ascertained and until we get counseled but I think that this is
something that could be worked out. Where it is consistent, I think the potential to do that is
there.
Scott: Okay. So the motion on the floor is to table.
Mancino: Second.
1 Scott: It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah, a little bit. Charlie, if the Byerly's wasn't farmed in a square, how many
square feet would there be in that? Any idea? Are we talking.
Charlie James: Yes, I figured that out ... This letter here, if we go from the very top to there
and out to here, that would be 6 x 16. That's 96 square feet. Then if we squared this area
off, this would be approximately 8 feet by 13 feet. The total is exactly 200 square feet. This
is 80 square feet right here and one of the reasons why I think we can prove that your
ordinance is making a mistake.
Conrad: I don't think, there's no question about that. No contest about that.
Charlie James: ...take a square footage of a wall. I mean think about it. If they're saying
15% or 80, just divide 80 square feet by .15 and that will tell you how big of a wall they
anticipated. It doesn't make any sense. And so I guess part of the problem here is, is that
I've got, if you are going to table this, I mean and then you're later on tonight, does that
mean I should stay around because you're going to talk about this ordinance? Or are you
going to table that new ordinance as well.
Scott: That's possible.
Conrad: That's a real possibility.
Charlie James: And the aspect of this is that I'm on kind of a situation where road
restrictions go on on Monday and we're going to be moving, trying to move equipment this
weekend onto the site. The scrapers and all that and I've got a situation here where Byerly's
isn't going to go ahead with this thing until they're comfortable, I mean this is Mr. Harberts'
22
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
hot spot, and this is not posturing just to ... kind of thing so if you are going to table it, I know
that they have to come back for a liquor license and I know that, I guess is there some way
that, you've got. That's why I was suggesting earlier if we could just separate this for a
moment from the aspect of your code and say, that code's got a problem. Okay. We're not
trying to solve the problem around Charlie James or writing the code around Charlie James.
Scott: Unfortunately that's what's going to happen.
Charlie James: ...and there's 80 square feet and I guess our position is that we've gone far
and above on everything on this building for you.
Scott: Agreed. I agree with that.
Charlie James: And I just need your help on this.
Scott: Bob, can this be on the agenda. Do you think the necessary work can be done by
staff so this could be on the agenda in 2 weeks? Yes? Mr. James, what do you think about.
This is unfortunately when you're breaking ground and you pay the toll and this is, from what t
I understand, is a series of these things for you and for this development. What we have here
is Bob Generous is willing to, this ordinance revised so we can take another look at it and
hopefully come to resolution in 2 weeks at our next meeting.
Krauss: Chairman Scott, what's the expectation though? What are we working this out for?
Scott: Well, I think we realize that the existing ordinance does not do what we need to do. I
mean from my particular standpoint, the Byerly's sign in and of itself I don't feel is out of
scale for the building. A subjective vision. I know that some of the issues that we do have
is when we start talking about Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours. It becomes a
departure from traditional signage to more advertising. I think what we, at least my
understanding of the ordinance that we're going to be looking at later on this evening, is that
it does not do a good job of setting the guidelines for a building of that scale. And as far as
giving concise direction, I think what we need to do is to perhaps have a better bridge
inbetween what we have required other people in similar standard developments and making
this consistent with it.
Krauss: We have no similar standard developments processed under the normal zoning
ordinance. Target and Festival were both PUD's. Those are the only two of comparable size.
Mancino: Well there's Filly's. Isn't that the one that Ladd said was oversized.
1
23
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Krauss: Well Filly's is potentially an example that we might ...m the future.
' Mancino: But it's oversized? It's big?
Conrad: I think yeah. Really the problem is, this is not bad in my opinion. And I think
most people up here would say this is not bad. And I'm probably speaking, not speaking for
some but most. Therefore, the ordinance that I've seen you draft doesn't allow this. Okay.
' That's the problem. Maybe we can allow this. Maybe I've got to figure out another way to
make this happen and maybe it's outlining the letters for 200 square feet and Charlie can
home tonight and, no. Let's work this out Charlie. You know that's my problem with the
ordinance right now. I'm seeing something that artistically is very nice. That is not
offensive. That I don't care if it's read from Highway 5 or from West 78th Street, it does a
nice job. I have to figure out how to make this legal in Chanhassen.
Scott: Yeah, that's the difficulty I think right there is that it looks nice but we can't use that
as our test. Looking nice can't be our ordinance.
1
1
Conrad: Well unfortunately you can allow something 3 times bigger that's pretty than
something that's 1/3 as big that's ugly and we're combining aesthetics with size and that's
tough. There are very few City Councils or Planning Commissions can deal with that issue.
We have to and so again, I think that's what we have to struggle with to see how to make
this work but make it consistent. Really we haven't had problems with the signage ordinance
here. We really haven't. It's been pretty good for it's many flaws. The signage ordinance is
the big bugaboo in any city and you know that. It's 40 pages long and it's got all these
things and nobody understands it and everybody's got a problem with it. But over all, our's
has done an okay job for the last 10 years but now Charlie you are bringing some new stuff
to us and we've just got to figure it out and our job is to not screw Byerly's up and you up.
But on the other hand, our job is to say hey, we have to treat people fairly here and for us to
just say go ahead, do it is not responsible. You wouldn't, if you lived here, you wouldn't
want us to do that.
Harberts: But I think at the same time, when you look at the fact you have public policy and
what you don't want to happen is to have a policy that really restricts, I guess in my
perspective is somewhat Jurrasic with the times. And I think the test from my perspective is,
what's the impact on the community? What's the impact in terms of development and I have
to agree with you Ladd. I think it certainly is pleasing. It's balanced. It meets those type of
criteria that I think will affect the general public in terms of when they're coming down the
street. Is it nice or is it you know ugly? I certainly am very sensitive to the fact that we
have to be sure and not acting in an arbitrary way but being consistent and what I'd like to be
able to do tonight is not let public policy that's out of date somewhat, or deficient, slow down
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
progress. And I don't know if we can move it. I would rather see a decision made tonight
rather than tabling it when we don't even know what are we trying to get at in 2 weeks. I
mean we could be spinning our wheels in 2 weeks or 4 weeks. '
Farmakes: But who's responsibility is that then? If we forward it. Is that avoiding what
we're supposed to be doing here?
Harberts: Well again I fall back to the frustration that it's a defect it seems in the policy and
what are we going to direct staff to do in 2 weeks? We're not going to change the ordinance. '
But yet at the same time it's certainly, I think the general consensus is that it is restrictive.
That this is, that this does work for what we have here. And that's where the frustration here
is. We've got a piece that works but we have a policy that isn't with the times.
Farmakes: But it seems to me that there's some other issues involved here besides the
signage of Byerly's or the logo itself. The other issues are supplemental signage. Is that
advertising? Is the liquor store a separate store or not? Would that allow that to be treated
as a separate store?
Harberts: And from my perspective, I look at the entire project and what's the impact to the
community. In my opinion, I think it's pleasant. I think it's balanced. Given the size of the '
development. And again, coming back to what's the intent of a public policy? Is it to be so
restrictive, so confining or is it to in a sense be able to help produce a product, an asset to the
community? ,
Farmakes: I understand that but if we ignore existing ordinances at will because we think
well that looks pretty good, we're creating a precedent that may come back to haunt us.
Harberts: And where's the frustration is for me Jeff. Is because perhaps that there needs to
be a change in our policy but again it's at the, it's the developer that's on the short side of
the stick so.
Mancino: Well we're asking the developer to wait for 2 weeks. Plus the fact we will be '
reviewing a new sign ordinance tonight.
Farmakes: I don't have a problem with that. Any other developer that we've had in here,
and I think we've tried to treat fairly and get them back on the docket as fast as possible.
Harberts: What will we accomplish in 2 weeks? What will staff be able, I guess that's one '
of the confusing parts that I have. What will staff bring back to us in 2 weeks that will make
the difference or is it just the discussion at the later point this evening about the new signage?
25
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
1
Scott: I'd like to see, if we do table this particular item, that that would be tabled with some
specific direction for staff to come back with something that we can give us a tool that we
can apply fairly to this circumstance and others like it. Jeff, would that be accurate?
Farmakes: Yeah. I think so. I think that w n interpretation at w if we're
e eed an that e, going to
1 apply this as a variance, are we going to apply it to the 12 criteria that we use to grant
variances? I don't know if this would qualify under that. The issue of the wine and spirits,
of the supplemental signage beyond the word Byerly's, it would technically it's a variance.
' We're granting a variance if we approve this.
Scott: We do have, we're discussing a motion that's on the floor to table.
' Harberts: Mr. Chair?
Scott: Yes.
Harberts: Just for the record I want to go on record that I am of no relation to Mr. Harberts
of Byerly's. Truthfully. I think they checked that out before and I guess that can be
confirmed.
Scott: Yes, that is confirmed. Thank you for your comments. We have a motion on the
floor, are we, we closed discussion? Okay, let's vote.
' Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
variance request for a sign permit for Byerly's at West Village Heights 2nd Addition
until the March 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor, except
Diane Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: Jeff could you, I don't know. Does staff have a direction as to what we want
accomplished?
Generous: Well partially but I'm going to wait until you discuss Kate's item later on and get
' a little more. Because I have the idea...
Scott: And I think we all agree the intent is that physically what we see, actually is what we
like. What we like is very subjective. However, we just want to make sure we have some
specific numbers or something that we can utilize to make decisions. Have a better tool.
Farmakes: If we're granting a variance, I think every time we do that you have in there the
criteria that we use to grant variances. So if for some reason another option that we have, if
' 26
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
there's some reason that we're not able to give specific direction to staff or you can't come
up with something that fits "the Byerly's thing ". Then what we need to do is to work out our
variance. Signage variance and maybe that's what we, maybe it's not an ordinance. Maybe
it's our variance criteria. So I think we have two options.
Harberts: It's of interest that we didn't attack this signage ordinance before this particular
piece.
Scott: Agreed. Normally since the public hearing has been closed but if you wish to say
something briefly.
Charlie James: I wanted to say one thing. If you're going to be considering this ordinance
later on this evening, one of the things you might want to consider, because someone raised
the issue of advertising, is go downtown. Is it Subway or is it Subway Sandwiches? Is it
MGM or is it MGM Wine and Spirits or liquor or whatever it is? Is it Festival, as we refer
to it in the industry or is it Festival Foods? So I mean there's a whole multi dimensional
thing there so.
Farmakes: Is it Holiday or is it Warm Snacks and Beer? You're right. It is a problem and
it's currently, under the current ordinance, subject to the manager of the store...
Scott: Okay. Thank you very much for your comments.
PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REPLAT
OUTLOT A, MARKET SQUARE INTO LOT 1. BLOCK 1, MARKET SQUARE 2ND
ADDITION FOR THE LOCATION OF A WENDY'S RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY
ZONED CBD AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH
STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Johnson
Vernelle Clayton
Herb Bloomberg
Clayton Johnson
Peter Beck
Jurij Ozga
Kevin Norby
Lotus Realty Services
Lotus Realty Services
7008 Dakota Avenue
Bloomberg Companies Inc.
7900 Xerxes Avenue So., Mpls
Naperville, IL
Landscape Architect
27
0
e
11
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
1 REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Jeff Farmakes, Ron
' Nutting, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts
' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aan n n Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner H; Dave
e so , aniung ecto , ob Gen e ,and a e
' Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
' PUBLIC HEARING:
CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE
SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS CENTER, LOCATED ON
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION.
Public Present:
' Name Address
I Charlie James
6640 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay, questions or comments for staff.
' Mancino: Are they also asking for approval of the pylon sign and the monument sign at this
time too?
Generous: Not specifically. They brought those back as a part of the sign package for the
entire site. The 20 foot monument sign will be 80 square feet of signage. It is permissible
under our code.
' Mancino: But so we're looking t a whole si na a package right now.
g g g P g 8
' Generous: Basically yes.
' Mancino: Okay, so it would include the pylon sign and the monument sign and all the wall
sign, right?
'J
f
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: In essence, yes.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: Do we have, maybe I missed it Do we have a copy of the criteria that we use to
grant variances?
Mancino: It was in the staff report.
Generous: Starting on page 3, the findings.
Farmakes: So it's incorporated into that? Okay.
Generous: Those are the a thru f are the criteria.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, we can ask more questions after the applicant comes up right?
Scott: Okay. I'd like to hear from the applicant please. Please step forward and identify
yourself and speak into the microphone.
Charlie James: Hello again. I'm Charlie James. You've probably heard all you want from
me. I guess I'd just refer once again to the type written narrative that we provided in the
report and also through the sign designs here that we have provided that are drawn in strict
accordance with the existing code and would be built out of this same material as the
building. Since our last get together here I managed to get a copy of a more 3 dimensional
artist rendering that Byerly's submitted so I'll pass this around. I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
Scott: Good, any questions?
Ledvina: Do you find the staff report acceptable?
Charlie James: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
Farmakes: I'd like to see the drawing before I close out on that.
i
0
1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Sure.
Mancino: Charlie, now Fine Foods, that is in reference to the grocery items ?. To the
restaurant?
Charlie James: I was told that that's part of their, that's a trademark Byerly's. Fine Food is
part of some trademark. They're just going to the Chicago market now for the first time.
They're building a store, or they're in the process which will follow right after this one in
Highland Park. It will be the first store and so they felt that in those areas that they're
putting in Chicago where they're not as known as they are here, that they would introduce
that onto their buildings there and so they decided to introduce it here for consistency. I'm
afraid I don't know whether they're referring to their restaurant or their groceries on that.
Mancino: Okay. It almost looks like here to me architecturally it's to symmetry of signs on
each side of Byerly's more than anything else. I have no more questions of the applicant.
Scott: Okay, any more questions or comments? Great. This is a public hearing and if I
could have a motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Scott: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on the Byerly's signage variance?
Seeing none, let the record show that there's no one here to speak on the first item. Can I
have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Scott: Comments.
Mancino: I have a question for Bob. Bob in your findings on (a), you felt that the sign
could or should be bigger. The signage area on the West 78th Street and you compared it to
Target and you compared it to Market Square as one of the reasons for being able to, and
when you made that comparison, what was your thinking as far as the rest of the signage
package? If I look at the rest of 78th Street and I look at Target and Market Square, they
don't have a 20 foot pylon sign. All they have, each one of them has one monument sign.
So if we're going to use them to say yes for bigger square footage, shouldn't we also use
them as the benchmark for signage on West 78th? So we're going to use them for part of it
but not the other? I mean that's what I'm asking.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: I didn't really look at it that way because as far as the pylon sign went, they were
meeting code and so I wasn't putting the package together in that sense. I was just trying to
compare the bulk of the building, the mass of the building and what they were requesting...
From a policy standpoint, yeah. It might make sense to put the whole thing together for West
78th Street.
Mancino: Okay. Because that's where I kind of come from. I'm seeing it, if we are going
to do something different here, allow a variance and if we use Target and we use Market
Square as the reason that we're allowing this variance, then I think that we should follow it
through on the entire signage package. I mean it only would make sense. Any discussion on
that?
Farmakes: I'd agree with it.
Scott: Yeah, I too.
Ledvina: Well I think the, just from in a comparison sense. I didn't know what the pylon
sign for the bank was and as I understand that's like about 20 feet? Something like that.
Mancino: For which?
Ledvina: For the bank sign.
Farmakes: 20 feet in height?
Mancino: Which bank?
Farmakes: Are you talking about Americana or what?
Ledvina: No, the Chanhassen Bank. No, okay. Then I'm mistaken.
Mancino: Well when I drove down, and I was looking at West 78th Street to see you know
what kind of pylon signs there are existing there right now. I was looking at Target. I was
looking at Market Square. I also looked at the Country Suites sign, which is not a 20 foot
sign either. I mean that's a block away but I kind of looked at the overall area to see what
was going on there because that's the comparison we're making and the reason for the
variance and it just struck me that you know if we do allow this, then I would like to see
compatible signs also. Monument signs. Although I like the design of the pylon sign. I like
it because it's kind of airy in the way it looks versus your squared off monument sign and I
still like the lower height in the sign.
4
u
rl,
1�
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' Scott: What height would you like, if there's going to be a monument sign like that, what
size would you want to see there?
Mancino: I would say either 8 to 10 feet. I'm not sure what's, probably 8 feet. Do you
know Bob off hand what the Target? I know that the Market Square is 10, isn't it? Because
we just saw a package for that Wendy's which was the same exact so it's either 8 or 10 feet.
' Aanenson: For Target?
I Mancino: Yes.
Aanenson: Here it is. It's 8 feet.
Mancino: Okay, 8 feet.
' Aanenson: Yeah, 8 x 6.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Well with regard to this particular issue, what would you be in favor of relative to
sizes, variance, etc? I mean would you support the staff recommendation? Or if not, how
' would you see that changing so that you would support it?
Mancino: Well I guess what I just look at, on the West 78th, the big Byerly's sign that is
' over the entrance that's 304 square feet, to me it could be 3/4 of that size and still be just
fine. I don't support the Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours as signage and I guess I feel that
overall, I mean I don't want to get into looking at different businesses that come in and
decide what language that they can be putting up on their walls besides the name or the
registered trademark or the logo of their business. So that is what I would limit it to.
Scott: So you'd support the Byerly's about 75 %, this is the West 78th, Byerly's West 78th
about 3/4 the size but not Fine Foods.
' Mancino: Not Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours. I have a little harder time with the Wine and
Spirits and obviously that I guess did not pass on Monday night at City Council so we don't
' even know if there's going to be a wine and fine spirits. Is that something that we should
still deal with tonight, even though it's off?
I Conrad: Sure.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: I support signage for kind of a store within a store, which I feel that this is. And ,
where I get confused is then if there's a restaurant within a store, at what point do we limit
the number of signs and I don't know that yet. So I'm going to wait on that part and listen
to everybody else. '
Scott: Okay. Well for purposes of coming to a decision, I've got this broken up into a
couple of things. We've got the Fine Foods, 24 Hours. We've got the West 78th Street ,
Byerly's. We've got Wine and Spirits and then we have the restaurant. Is that a good
framework to work from so we can say yes, no, yes, no, because I think we need to come to
an agreement here. Would anybody else like to, is there any discussion? Any additional '
discussion?
Farmakes: Are we going to make comments around the board?
Scott: Yeah. Yeah.
Farmakes: We can jump around? '
Scott: Sure, that's fine. You can go. I
Farmakes: I'd agree with what has been said except for personally I would be fine with
Open 24 Hours and Wine and Spirits. The criteria being it's a separate entrance for the store '
similar to their other operations. It requires a separate license. So I don't have a problem
with that because of the amount of square footage that's there, which I think is the overriding
call for the variance here. I think it's reasonable with a store that size to see that the part of '
the store and the elevation facing south has a reasonable opportunity to be seen from
Highway 5 because of it's location and the fact that it's a, or subregional, a destination for
people outside of town finding it. I do think however that the east and the west applications '
are different than what the applicant is applying for. I don't think they need to be that strong.
I would limit any signage on the building to the west. Rely on monumenture for at the entry
points along 78th and along Kerber Boulevard. I would eliminate the wall signage to the east. '
Scott: Eliminate wall signage to the east or to the west? '
Farmakes: I would leave it to a monument. An entry monument or get it off of the wall. I
don't think it's required that it be that large. The sight distances from the roads, they're ,
virtually right next to the building. Right next to the sign. Obviously a different assignment
to the south. Facing the highway.
Scott: Yeah. So you'd support the size of the Byerly's logo as proposed? '
6 1
�J
n
�J
7
I �
J
71
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: I think it's reasonable because it has a further distance than Target. I think it's
reasonable. If we could moderate and eliminate the pylon sign to monument for the entrance
to the south, on 78th, and the entrance to the east. And take the rest of the signage off the
buildings as far as Byerly's goes. And leave Wine and Spirits and Open 24 Hours. Get rid
of Fine Foods. I think a case has been made that that's a trademark. It's a generic verbage
and it's far enough away from Byerly's that it's a category capability.
Scott: Okay good. Matt.
Ledvina: Boy we've got a couple different things that have been proposed. Overall I think
that the proposal is acceptable the way it's been laid out and I look at how I think it's going
to look after it's built and I don't have a problem with what's there. Fine Foods, Open 24
Hours, Wine and Spirits and the Byerly's logo. I think Nancy has a good point with the
pylon. I think maybe 20 feet is just a little bit too much there.
Scott: What would you like to see?
Ledvina: I think 10 to 12 feet would be acceptable. I don't know. Maybe it should be 8
feet but you know I'm okay with 10 or 12.
Scott: And then what about the, so then there's signage proposed on the east and the west
elevations. That's acceptable to you?
Ledvina: Well, as it relates to the provisions that are laid out in the ordinance, I think you
have to have the street frontage to get the signage.
Farmakes: Staff is recommending denial of the west elevation. I made a recommendation
that the east elevation be removed and allow it to have a monument on Kerber rather than
virtually if you drove on Kerber you'd be right next to the sign, whether it's on the wall or
whether it's on the street. My comment was from the distance that it has to be read, it's not
necessary that it be that size. From the east elevation. The only sight line is from city park
and 78th.
t
Mancino: I kind of like that. That's kind of nice because if you're in Market Square, you
could look up you know Kerber.
Farmakes: It would allow sight from Kerber and sight from 78th but it would not be
obtrusive to virtually what's civic property.
Ledvina: You're restricting them beyond what the ordinance would say then.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: Well it depends on how you want to look at this. You're granting a variance so I
you're not restricting them. You're offering.
Ledvina: Right, there's a give and take. I
Farmakes: There's a give and take situation there. I think the primary emphasis to the
applicant is to be seen from TH 5. I would agree that that's the motivation for the variance.
I think that that's reasonable.
Nutting: Jeff did you come out in favor of the pylon and putting the monuments as part also I
on 78th?
Farmakes: I would be in favor, I don't want to take away from some of the comments. I '
just wanted to clarify the differences between the comments that have been made up to that
point. My comment is to support what Nancy said to the exclusion of Fine Foods and the east
elevation. Currently if you look on where it says east elevation, the secondary sign. That ,
signage is virtually facing City Hall and for direction or people coming down Kerber or
people coming down 78th to see the location, if it was a monumenture at the entrance area
there, that that would suffice. And still follow the moderation that we used with Target. It'd
be similar to how Target reads off of 78th.
Scott: Okay. Matt? '
Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I would accept that. Elimination of that signage on the east
side.
Scott: Okay. Ladd. '
Conrad: Jeff you said eliminate the signage on the east side?
Farmakes: No, I said replace it with monumenture like Target. '
Ledvina: Well, the wall signage.
Conrad: Yeah.
Farmakes: And the entrance point from the east.
Ledvina: So add a monument sign. I
a 1
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' Farmakes: There'd be two monument signs in place of a pylon.
' Conrad: We're all going to have different opinions. I don't mind the, I think most of the
signage that's requested is quite nice. Basically, but I do have some exceptions and they're a
little bit different than everybody. I like all the wine and spurts. The fine foods is fine. I
' don't like the 24 hours out there. I think that's, I just don't want that. That's not what, I
don't want that. The pylon sign in front, I think we should take it down in size. That's sort
of a give and take process here to allow the variance and I don't have a clue what to say to
' Jeff's proposal. Not a clue. I was comfortable with the east elevation as it was provided the
24 hours was taken off of that. So I'm probably in a different spot than everybody else.
' Scott: Ron.
Nutting: I could go along also with the adjustment in the pylon. I guess how low do you
' bring it before a pylon has to become a monument?
Scott: I'm just saying, chop the legs off and it becomes a monument.
Nutting: So I don't know what impact bringing it down to 12 feet has. If it stays a pylon or
if it becomes a monument or how that fits the plan. I'm okay with the east elevation signage
' but there's the give and take side but I think if we're bringing down the pylon, I mean there's
give and take going already with the pylon coming down. I think the east elevation sign
could stay. I'm okay with the Byerly's logo out front at the present size. And as far as the
' 24 hours, fine foods, wine and spirits, I can live with all three of those.
Scott: Good. Yeah, I'm fine with the Byerly's on West 78th. I think that's the kind of
' treatment that we're looking at. I mean what we don't want to see is a 4 x 8, back lit piece
of plastic so I think that works well. I don't think the 24 hours, open 24 hours is appropriate.
Wine and Spirits is fine. I like the suggestion of the signage on the east face being replaced
' with a monument and also having the large sign out by the street on West 78th to be
something that's in the 10 to 12 foot range. So are there any more comments? Any more
' discussion?
Mancino: Yeah, I have a question and that is Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the applicant
what he thinks of Jeff's suggestion on Kerber. To take off the wall sign and put it on a
monument sign on Kerber. I'd like to get his thoughts on that.
' Charlie James: Well unfortunately I'm not in a position to deal with it. The people from
Byerly's so I don't know what their ... might be. I guess reducing the, I think one of the
reasons for the pylon down on West 78th Street for instance is because the code specifically
9
10 ,
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
allows a pylon and so we just tried to draw what we had down there to fit the code. I would
think at that point, I'm speaking for Byerly's here but I can't imagine getting too much brain
'
damage if that was lowered or consistent with the other ones we're doing. Unfortunately
the ordinance doesn't provide for that. It says you can have a pylon...so that's how we ended
up with that. But I could see some, although Target has a pylon 36 feet tall, I can appreciate,
'
I guess what I heard tonight for the first time was a concern about West 78th Street. What
that streetscape looks like. I appreciate that argument. As long as everything else going out
West 78th Street we're consistent here—going on there further west and everybody's got these
'
big signs, what are you going to do out there? Because they're in a wedge, are you going to
say they're along Highway 5 or are they on West 78th? Do they get to push their pylon up
to, I don't know. I guess I have, maybe we could get some consensus or direction from
'
Byerly's prior to City Council or something, I don't know. I'm afraid they're not here
tonight. The gentleman that ordinarily attends this is on vacation with his family this week
so I guess I'm indicating that we're going along with that.-and I guess I can appreciate the
'
concern on West 78th. Whether Byerly's will like it or not...
Scott: Okay. Any other discussion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
'
approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum
of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's. A variance of 351 square
feet and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east elevation of Byerly's. A
'
variance of 296 square feet. Approval of the signage on the west elevation of the retail
center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's. This
approval is subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the following additions.
'
Number 7, a pylon sign should be limited to a height of 12 feet. Number 8, the words "Open
24 Hours" should be eliminated from all signage text.
'
Conrad: I second that.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
,
Mancino: Yeah. You're suggesting Matt that we say 12 feet even though Target and Market
Square, their monument signs are only 8 feet? And why? I mean I just want to hear some
'
rationale. If we're trying to have the whole area kind of have the same comparable,
compatible signage.
Ledvina: Well I don't think 4 feet is, Market Square is just 10 feet I don't think. Well that'd
be an extra 2 feet. I don't think that difference is able to be seen. I think that the, by taking
them down to 8 feet, I think what happens is maybe this design doesn't become feasible
'
10 ,
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
anymore. And I like this design. I like the way this is set up. So I don't want to see this
eliminated. I just want to see it scaled down. Perhaps they'll actually scale the whole thing
down and we might get a smaller Byerly's on there. But I would leave that up to them in
terms of how they would do it.
Mancino: So you kind of just picked an arbitrary height. Instead of picking, would you
entertain a friendly amendment of the maximum height not being any larger or any higher
than either the Market Square or the Target monument instead of kind of picking an arbitrary.
' Ledvina: Well then that would be 10 feet right?
L II
L 7
1
Mancino: Yeah.
Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that.
Farmakes: What about the issue, the east elevation? You're proposing it as it's drawn right
now?
Scott: Except for the 24 hours.
Ledvina: Yes, eliminate the.
Farmakes: No, the east elevation would be attached to the wall rather than the monument?
Ledvina: Yes. I think that's.
Farmakes: That's a much larger scale.
Ledvina: Pardon?
Farmakes: That's a much larger scale design than would be on a monument of 10 feet.
Ledvina: Right. I think that again what they're requesting for, or requesting is reasonable. I
don't want to monkey with it too much. Maybe that's the wrong word. I don't feel that that
I want or I don't feel we should restrict them to that degree. To totally eliminating that
signage.
Farmakes: But the only sight line for that signage is the government civic park and
Chanhassen Bank.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Ledvina: Well, you can see the sign as you're on the road as well. I
Farmakes: You can't see it from Kerber coming to the south until you become adjacent to '
the building. And coming on the east, west on 78th, you couldn't see, you'd see it at the
same time you saw the front end elevation or the south elevation of the building.
Scott: And the monument sign. '
Farmakes: Because of the projectory of the angle that you see it. '
Scott: You'd also see the monument sign out front with a monument pylon on West 78th.
Well too it looks as if the Byerly's on the east elevation is the same size as the Byerly's on '
the south elevation.
Ledvina: Is that the case? I
Generous: It is.
There were several conversations going I
( g g on simultaneously at this point.)
Ledvina: Well if you would like to make a friendly amendment to that affect, I would accept '
that.
Farmakes: I'll make a friendly amendment that the east elevation sign be reduced to the '
word Byerly's, similar to the monument sign on the 78th Street south elevation. And reduced
to the same height as Target and Market Square. ,
Scott: Which would be?
Mancino: I think we said max 10.
Scott: So we're looking at two 10 foot monument signs, Kerber and West 78th. I
Mancino: I have a question for discussion Matt. When you gave square footage, total square
footage earlier, on each elevation. Did it take in 24 hours because I know that you wanted to '
eliminate that so wouldn't that take away from the overall square footage that we would
allow?
Ledvina: Yes, I would imagine so. Actually that's something we need to be concerned
about?
12
Fi
0
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Well we're taking away three occurences of open 24 hours and I don't know if that's
2 feet tall by 8 or something.
Ledvina: Well can we just, can I add another condition. Condition number 9 that the
footages, the square footage identified in the main body of the recommendation be adjusted
to, adjusted downward to account for the elimination of the Open 24 Hours text of the
signage. Is that acceptable?
Scott: Is there any more discussion?
Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question from Bob?
Scott: Certainly.
Mancino: Bob, on recommendation number 4 you have the signage will have consistency
throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and
height. Does that mean that you know, a Byerly's has PMS 286. I mean that's their logo
color. Does that mean that every other retail store in this development has to use this color
for their signage?
Generous: No, that's not the intent no. But we wouldn't want to have clashing colors that
don't go together.
Farmakes: Are we specifying what colors we're seeing in the signs?
Mancino: Well yeah, are we specifying what colors we're seeing on the signage? I suppose
we should do that.
Farmakes: Determine that as Byerly's blue.
Scott: Would that be condition number 11?
Mancino: Yeah. Friendly amendment Matthew. That we specify that for Byerly's, that
there's consistency in color and that is the Byerly's blue which is PMS 286.
Ledvina: I would accept that.
Scott: So we have a motion on the floor. Let's see, can we have a second?
Ledvina: Do you accept those? The second has to accept those amendments as well?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Conrad: I don't.
Ledvina: Okay, you don't.
Farmakes: I'd second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we.
Ledvina: Well can we, excuse me. Are there any particular ones that you don't agree with?
Conrad: Yeah. We're kind of tinkering with the, we're designing signage here. I don't
know, I'm real uncomfortable with that. I like to see what it is and how the applicant say
that makes sense so. A couple things did make sense. The 24 hours to me made sense
taking that out. Approving well designed signage made sense, whether we did it through a
variance or through another vehicle but as we start gerry rigging signage here, as resident
experts, I'm not comfortable with that
Ledvina: So if you didn't accept the friendly amendments, then it goes back to my original
motion and we have to vote on that because we have a motion and a second. Is that correct?
Conrad: I think you had another second. I think Jeff could second your motion. I withdrew
my second. So Jeff can second it.
Scott: Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye?
Mancino: Can we state the motion in it's entirety?
Scott: Certainly. Would you like to do that?
Ledvina: Well we have the, okay I'll go ahead and do that if I can. Item number 7.
Reduces the maximum height of the pylon to 10 feet. Number 8, which eliminates the words
"Open 24 Hours" from all signage text. Number 9 which was Jeff's friendly amendment as it
related to the elimination of the signage on the east elevation of the building. Replacing that
signage with a monument.
Scott: 10 foot.
Ledvina: Okay. And then number 10 which reduces the square footages for the signage
stated in the body of the recommendation to account for the removal of the words "Open 24
Hours" from the signage text. I think that's it.
14
L 7
u
r
L
C�
J
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: And then number 11 was Nancy's.
Mancino: The color.
Ledvina: Okay. And number 11 would be the use of the consistent color PMS 286.
Mancino: PMS 286. Byerly's blue.
Scott: Is everybody ready to vote?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to
permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's (a
variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east
elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 2% square feet), approval of the signage on the west
elevation of the retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west
elevation of Byerly's This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in signage
shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 10 feet.
8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be eliminated from all signage text.
9. The east elevation sign be reduced to the word Byerly's, similar to the monument
sign on the 78th Street south elevation and reduced to the same height as Target
and Market Square.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall
account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
Scott: The motion carries 4 to 2 and Ron, if you could summarize your thoughts on your nay
vote.
Nutting: In my earlier comments I basically agreed with the east elevation signage. I guess
I'm new to this game and I still haven't fully figured out the process but I'm less a tinkerer
and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. I don't, I'm not comfortable with
picking everything apart to what I see as opposed to what the developers have spent a lot of
time working on.
Scott: Okay. And Ladd, your comments.
Conrad: I've made them already.
Scott: Good. And this goes to City Council?
Generous: March 28th.
16