1d Sign West One AdditionCITYOF
CHAN SEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax:952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finanl:e
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591ParkRoad
Phone:952.227.1300
Fax:952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www. ci.chanhassen.mn.us
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Kristin Wentzlaff, Planning Intern
DATE: August 11, 2003
SUBJ:
Update on PUD Amendment g93-1
Executive Summary: The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) amendment to allow a monument sign at the intersection of Kerber
Boulevard and Picha Drive. The current PUD agreement allows one wall sign for
each business, but does not permit monument signs. Monument signs are permitted
by code and are typically permitted in a PUD. A typical PUD agreement allows one
monument sign per street frontage. The building on this property is a multi-tenant
building and the sign would provide information about the location of each business
in the building. The applicant is proposing a sign that would be ten (10) feet, six (6)
inches tall and twelve (12) feet wide. Staff and the Planning Commission agree that
a sign with a maximum of eight (8) feet in height, in accordance with an Industrial
Office Park district, would be appropriate. The property is located to the south of
West 78~ Street and northeast of Highway 5. The site is approximately 2.2 acres,
and is zoned Planned Unit Development, PUD.
PC Update: On July 15, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
review the proposed PUD Amendment. The Planning Commission and staff
recommend approval of the PUD Amendment for an eight (8) foot tall monument
sign with design standards. The summary and verbatim minutes are attached.
The motion and conditions of approval can be found on page 6 of the staff report.
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the PUD
Amendment. The recommendation is found on page 6 of the staff report.
Attachments:
1. PUD Amendment g93-1 Staff Report
2. July 15, 2003 Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes
The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gr~at place to live, work, and play.
CITY OF
PC DATE: 7/15/2003
CC DATE: 8/11/2003
REVIEW DEADLINE: 8/13/2003
CASE #: 93-1 PUD Amendment
, ~/
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow a monument sign
to be placed on a.property zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). -.
7920 Kerber Boulevard, Lot 1, Blockl, West One Addition
Southwest comer of the intersection of Kerber Boulevard and Picha Drive
Steve HanSen
7920 Kerber Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
ACREAGE: 2.2 acres (95,889 square feet)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a monument sign on property
located southwest of Kerber Boulevard and north of Highway 5. Monument signs were not part of the
sign package in the original PUD agreement. The applicant wishes to amend the PUD agreement to
allow for one monument sign. The applicant is proposing a sign that would be ten (10) feet, six (6)
inches tall by twelve (12) feet wide. Staff is recommending approval of the request to allow the
monument sign, but limiting it to eight (8) in height in accordance with the ordinance regulating
Industrial Office Park signs.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of
discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its
legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
PUD Amendment 93-1
July 15, 2003
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a PUD amendment to allow a monument sign at the intersection of Kerber
Boulevard and Picha Drive. The current PUD agreement allows one wall sign for each business, but
does not permit monument signs. Monument signs are typically permitted in a PUD. A typical PUD
agreement allows one monument sign per street frontage. The applicant is proposing a sign that would
be ten (10) feet, six (6) inches tall and twelve (12) feet wide. The building on this property is a multi-
tenant building and the sign would provide information about the location of each business in the
building. The property in question is located to the south of West 78th Street and northeast of Highway
5. The property has two access points from Picha Drive and one access point from Kerber Boulevard.
The site is approximately 2.2 acres, and is zoned Planned Unit Development, PUD.
APPLICABLE REGULATION
Sec. 20-505 Required General Standards.
(i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the
city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants, established in the PUD
Development Contract.
Sec. 20-507 Controls During Construction and Following Completion.
(b) (3) Changes in uses, any rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the
provisions of common spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development
plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the planning commission
PUD Amendment 93-1
July 15, 2003
Page 3
and upon final approval by the city council. Any changes shall be recorded as
amendments to the final development plan.
Sec. 20-1265 General Location Restrictions.
(a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-
half (Va) the minimum required yard setback. Sign shall not block site distance triangle
thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line.
(c)
No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected or placed upon any public
street, right-of-way, or project over public property. Temporary signs may not be
erected or placed in a public easement unless approved by the city.
(d)
Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain word which might be construed as
traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is intended to
direct traffic on the premises.
PUD Agreement 93-1 (g) Signage
No signage is proposed at this time. (As per 1993 PUD Agreement.)
(1)
Each business shall be allowed one wall mounted sign. The total of all wall mounted
sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building
wall upon which the signs are mounted.
(2) All signs require a separate permit.
(3)
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and will use materials
compatible with the building. Signs shall be an architectural feature, and shall not be
solely mounted on a pole of a foundation.
(4) Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
(5) Temporary signs will be allowed in a manner consistent with the city sign code.
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 1973, the subject site was zoned I-l, Industrial. On June 12, 1978, the City Council
approved a site plan for an office/warehouse/manufacturing facility on Lots 4 and 5, Burdick Park. The
site plan was approved with conditions and a variance to setback requirements. The site was developed
meeting the original conditions of approval.
On March 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a concept plan for the expansion of the existing
building and unanimously recommended approval of it, with an added condition of an improved
architectural appearance to the building and the incorporation of transit planning to the site design. On
April 12, 1993, the plan was reviewed by the City Council and approved as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
PUD Amendment 93-1
July 15, 2003
Page 4
On June 16, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed preliminary and final stage of the PUD plan,
preliminary plat, comprehensive plan amendment, and the site plan. The application was approved with
a vote of three to two.
There are currently two signs at the site, one monument sign and one roof sign, which were not part of
the PUD agreement. Roof signs are prohibited and there is no record of a sign permit for either the roof
sign or the monument sign. These signs must be removed.
ANALYSIS
A development review application was received on 6/13/03 requesting a PUD amendment to allow a
monument sign to be placed at the intersection of Picha Drive and Kerber Boulevard. Currently the
PUD agreement allows for each business to have one wall mounted sign per business. The proposed
sign would be ten (10) feet, six (6) inches by twelve (12) feet. The building houses multiple tenants and
there would be 12 individual tenant signs within the main sign structure. The materials used would be
consistent with the materials used for the building. The roof of the sign would be the' same green
colored metal as the roof of the entry of the building. The pillars supporting the sign would be square
fluted concrete pillars. The building is concrete and the fluted pillars would tie into the building because
of the vertical line pattern on parts of the building. The borders of the individual signs would be metal
in a similar color to the concrete of the building. The individual tenant signs would be made of plexi-
glass and have individual vinyl lettering. The sign would not be illuminated at this time.
The PUD has similar uses to an Industrial Office Park (IOP) district. City ordinance allows lOP districts
to have one monument sign per street frontage with a maximum height of eight (8) feet and maximum
sign display area of sixty-four (64) square feet. Typically, a PUD is granted one monument sign per
street frontage as part of the sign package. At the time that this PUD was under development, the
applicant did not request that a monument sign be part of the total sign package. There are two
drawings of the proposed sign. The first drawing (attachment g4) shows the sign display area and
design of the sign architecture. This was the first drawing submitted. The applicant submitted a second
drawing of the same design but with different dimensions than the first. The second drawing
(attachment #5) shows only the sign display area and the new measurements. The new measurements
would make the entire sign structure ten (10) feet, six (6) inches tall by twelve (12) feet wide. The sign
display area would comply with the sixty-four (64) square feet maximum standard. Attachment #3
depicts where on the site the sign would be placed. The sign cannot be located in that exact space where
it is drown because it needs to be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line. Below is a
photograph of the site.
PUD Amendment 93-1
July 15, 2003
Page 5
,~,.
As part of the sign permit application process, the applicant must apply for a separate sign permit and
submit construction details. In addition, the applicant should be aware that no building shall be
allowed over a drainage and utility easement and that type 1 silt fence per City Detail Plate No. 5300
must be used around the construction area.
FINDINGS
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects
of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are:
1)
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding: Signage is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and part of the
City Code. According to Section 20-1251, the City has a goal to,
"Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and
equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service."
2)
The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
area.
Finding: In the comprehensive plan, the property is zoned for commercial
use. The proposed sign will not change the current or future
use, and in fact should enhance the commercial use.
3)
The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Finding: The use of monument signs for advertising and identifying the
location of businesses is standard in PUDs. This particular PUD
fits the Industrial Office Park (IOP) use. Properties zoned IOP
are allowed one monument sign per street frontage with a
PUD Amendment 93-1
July 15, 2003
Page 6
maximum height of eight (8) feet and a maximum area of sixty-
four (64) square feel
4)
The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
Finding: Monument signs are permitted in Industrial Office Park districts
and are common in Planned Unit Developments. The sign
should not depreciate the area.
5)
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
Finding: The proposed sign must be maintained by the property owner
and will not require any additional public services.
6)
Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
Finding: The proposed sign is meant to direct customers to the existing
businesses. It may generate more traffic in the area, but the
streets serving the area should be capable of handling the
additional vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commit, sion City Council adopt the
following motion:
'°I~e Planning Commission City Council rocommonds approval of approves PUD Amendment g93-1
section (g) signage to allow a monument sign to be placed at the intersection of Kerber Boulevard and
Picha Drive, with the following sign standards:
1. The sign must be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and shall not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet.
2. The sign must be outside of the thirty (30) foot site triangle.
3. The sign must maintain a ten (10) foot setback from any property line.
4. If the sign is illuminated in the future, it must be back lit or cast down at a 90°angle.
5. The sign must be built consistent with the plans submitted on 6/13/2003 7/9/03.
6. Signage constructed on this property in the future must follow the Industrial Office Park
district sign ordinance (Sec. 20-1304) and the original PUD sign package."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Map of Subject Site
3. Site Plan
4. Drawing #1 of Proposed Monument Sign
5. Drawing #2 of Proposed Monument Sign
PUD Amendment 93-1
July 15, 2003
Page 7
6. Photos of Existing Signage
7. Section 20-1304 Industrial Office Park Sign Ordinance
8. Public Hearing Notice/Label
9. City Engineer's Recommendation
10. 93-1 PUD Agreement
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS: -'7cl q.o I/_.~zl~{~_
TELEPHONE (Day time) ~ol'1.-- -'~ ~.,~
OWNER: ,'L3OU'f°
ADDRESS: I
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
X' Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
~ Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ I ~ ~ ~ ~ t) ~/ ·
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
· Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8~/2'' X 11" reduced copy
for each plan sheet.
· * Escrow will .be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME t,~ ~-'~T' O|~J ~'
LOCATION ~Jo~O.-T1A ~,'~' 1"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
YES X NO
? PRESENT ZONING
~) REQUESTED ZONING
·
') PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
'
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I.am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to'this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature of Applicant Date
inat~ ~'~~
S'g :ure of Fee gwner
Date
Application Received on ~J~/~ FeePaid .\~"~ RecoiptNo.~l~/~,C~i"~).JrC.~[ , yP._~, [:~
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be avairable on Friday prior to the meeting.
· ff not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
' I''
:'* ('i's096'6 L/.C~x,06)
', §u!pl!na..'
,gL'LSL-
k
I / I I
i
t
I
I
RECEIVED
JUN I 3 2003
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
87/89/2883 88:21
952-934-4~03
PAGE 82
..... ~ . . . .,', . '.~~. ,~' ~ ....
~, ~ . .
. m~ . . ~~: , ,
79~8 HANSON- ~ 7900
-'" STICKS & CLU~S~ c,~,~,l,~,~ ~ D~i~n
~ 10
MACHINE TOOL '.~, ;:" IRON'MAN
~.7024 ~.~ 7912
FOR LEASE ~: ,MECH DESIGN
7926 ,~ 7914
FOR LEASE :~ BLUE WATER
~,'28 . ~79',6 BCLEAr WATER..~
[OR LEASE,.~ t~J,~,,~
RECEIVED
JUL 0.9 2003
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Sec. 20-1304. Industrial office park signs.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP district:
(1)
Pylon or ground Iow profile business signs. Pylon signs are permitted on
parcels that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon or one (1)
ground low profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be
permitted. A pylon sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign
area and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. A ground low profile
may not exceed eighty (80) square feet and eight (8) feet in height. Such
sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
(2)
Ground Iow profile business signs. One (1) ground Iow profile business
sign shall be permitted r per site for each street frontage. Such sign shall
not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area nor be greater
than eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet
from any property line.
(3)
Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street
frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all
wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the
square footage established in the following table:
Maximum
Percentage
Wall Area
in Square Feet
Maximum Square
Footage of Sign
of Wall
15% 0--600 90
13% 601--1,200 156
11% 1,201--1,800 198
9% 1,801--2,400 216
7% 2,401--3,200 224
5 % 3,201 --4,500 230
3% 4,500+ 240
(Ord. No. 231, § 1, 1-9-95; Ord. No. 314, § 3, 3-26-01)
Secs. 20-1305--20-1350. Reserved.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL:
Allow A Directory Sign
APPLICANT: Steven Hansen
LOCATION: SW Corner of Kerber
Blvd. and West 78th Street
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
Steven Hansen, is requesting a Planned Unit Development amendment for a directory sign to be
located at the southwest corner of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and 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 Kristin at 227-1132 or e-mail kwentzlaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the 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 July 3, 2003.
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160®
JAMES COMPANY
BOX 560
-7.XCELSIOR MN
55331
DOUGLAS M HANSEN
11969 NORTH SHORE DR
SPICER MN 56288
31TY OF CHANHASSEN
3/0 BRUCE DEJONG
30 BOX 147
7700 MARKET BLVD
3HANHASSEN MN
55317
CHANHASSEN HRA
PO BOX 147
7700 MARKET BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
31TY OF CHANHASSEN
3/O BRUCE DEJONG
PO BOX 147
7700 MARKET BLVD
3HANHASSEN MN
55317
TARGET CORPORATION T-0862
~,TTN: PROPERTY TAX DEPT
TPN-0950 PO BOX 9456
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440
MARKET SQUARE ASSOC LTD PTRSHP
200 HWY 13 W
BURNSVILLE MN 55337
M&I MARSHALL & ILSLEY BANK
~,TTN: MARK STUEHN
770 N WATER ST
MILWAUKEE WI 53202
MARKET SQUARE ASSTS II LLC
PO BOX 250
470 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
MARKET SQUARE ASSOC LTD PTRSHP
200 HWY 13 W
BURNSVILLE MN 55337
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL INC
PO BOX 256
DUBLIN OH 43017
B C BURDICK
884 EXCELSIOR BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
~AVERY®
Address Labels
Laser 53.60®
C OF
CHANHASEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www. ci.chanhassen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Kristin Wentzlaff, Planner
Mak Sweidan, Engineer~
June 26, 2003
Review of a Monument Sign Southwest of Kerber Boulevard and
North of Highway 5
The Engineering Department has reviewed a request for a PUD Amendment to
permit a monument sign on property zoned PUD and located southwest of Kerber
Boulevard and north of Highway 5. The request was submitted on June 13, 2003
by the applicant, Steve Hansen. I offer the following recommended conditions of
approval:
1. The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility
and drainage easement.
2. Type I silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used around the
construction area.
ktm
c:
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
g:\eng\mahmoud\memos\hansen monument sign.doc
The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A grot place to live, work, and play.
PC DATE: 6/16/93
CC DATE: 6/28/93
CASE #: 93-1 PUD
By: A1-Jaff
PROPOSAL: 1.Preliminary Plat and Preliminary/Final PUD Development Plan Approval for
Rezoning of Property from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned
Unit Development
2.Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow light industrial use on property guided for commercial
use
3.Site Plan Review for a 16,335 Square Foot Addition
LOCATION: 7900 Kerber Boulevard - Chaska Machine and Tool, Inc., Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2,
Burdick Park
APPLICANT: Doug Hanson
17001 Stodola Road
Minnetonka, MN 55345
PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business
ACREAGE:
97,163 square feet 2.2 acres
DENSITY: n/a
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- BG, vacant
S - Highway 5/Twin City Western Railroad
E - PUD, Market Square/City owned outlot
W - PUD, Target
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. :The site has an existing light manufacturing building with a parking
lot, landscaping and utilities. Mature trees occupy the
southerly portion of the site.
2000 I_aSaND USE PLAN: Commercial
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 2
PROPOSAUSUIVIMARY
There have been numerous changes in this proposal since it was first submitted to the city.
Therefore, staff has elected to write a new report, rather than provide the City Council with
an update.
The applicant, Doug Hanson, was involved in the initial development of this site and has requested
approval to expand the existing building onto Lot 3, Block 2, Burdick Park. The site is located
north of Highway 5 and the Twin City Western Railroad, west of Market Square, and east of
Target. It is an "L" shaped parcel with an area of 2.2 acres. The proposal consists of a preliminary
and final development plan for rezoning from BG to PUD, site plan approval and a comprehensive
plan amendment. Preliminary and final plat approval is also being requested. Conceptual approval
was given by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1993, and by the City Council on April 12,
1993. On June 16, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the actual application and
recommended approval with a vote of three to two. Staff will detail the reasons for the split vote
further in the report.
Chaska Machine and Tool, Inc., which is a light manufacturing facility with an employment base of
40 (30 during the day shift and 10 during the evening shift), occupies the building. The shifts are
from 6:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 3:30 a.m. The business is a metal stamping facility and
the loading dock/truck activity is minimal and is only used during the day. The zoning of the
property has been changed, since the original approval, from I-l, Industrial to BG, General
Business. This was done under an effort to remove non-conforming uses from the CBD in support
of redevelopment efforts. The BG, General Business District does not permit industrial uses such
as manufacturing. Therefore, the existing use is now non-conforming and cannot be expanded.
There is one lot left vacant adjacent and to the south of the existing building (Lot 3, Block 2,
Burdick Park). This parcel is owned by the Chanhassen HRA. The existing building and Lot 3 are
located at the end of Kerber Boulevard, between Market Square and Target/City owned outlot. The
site is bordered to the south by Highway 5 right-of-way. Staff visited the site to determine how the
existing use fit in with the newly developed properties adjacent to it and to determine if the site was
suitable for commercial uses. The remaining lot (Lot 3) is less than an acre in size, is not easily
seen from West 78th Street (where it would receive access) or Highway 5 and abuts the rear
parking lot and outdoor storage area of Market Square and Target. With these circumstances, staff
did not feel that a new user would find this site to be appropriate for a commercial use. Also, staff
felt that the existing facility was low level industrial and has proven to be compatible with the
surrounding property and uses. Both the existing building and vacant parcel have poor visibility
from W. 78th Street and virtually no visibility from Hwy. 5. We concluded that retail commercial
uses were not likely to be a realistic option in this area and support the request to rezone both
parcels to allow for an expansion of the existing use.
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 3
The only option the applicant has to expand the site is to rezone the property to IOP, Industrial
Office Park or PUD, Planned Unit Development. Staff did not feel rezoning the site to IOP,
Industrial Office Park was appropriate. We did not wish to open the site up to any industrial use.
Instead we recommended the applicant apply for rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
The intent of a PUD is to develop flexible zoning while creating a higher standard of development.
Part of the PUD process is to establish development standards by which the site plan will be
required to adhere to. This PUD will be governed by the final development plan.
The overall preliminary site plan appears to be in order and well designed. Staff has been working
with the applicant for a few months and the plans have gone through some changes since it first
appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council for the concept approval. Additional
changes were made after the June 16, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. The intended use of
this building is office, light manufacturing, and warehousing. Standards are proposed to be
incorporated with the PUD agreement that would limit all future use of the site to low impact ones
consistent with its surroundings. The applicant is proposing significant new plantings of over-story
and evergreen trees be provided between the site and Hwy. 5 to expand the "Target" forest to the
east. This was a condition of approval that the Planning Commission required. The applicant has
revised the plans to meet this condition. Some trees will be lost after placing the new addition.
Also there is limited space where trees can be placed on site. Therefore, staff is recommending that
should adequate space become problematic for the trees to grow, 10 of those proposed trees be
placed on Outlot A, Crossroads Plaza (fountain site).
Originally, the applicant was proposing to develop the site in two phases. However, on June 2,
1993, staff was informed of a change of plans and that the applicant was proposing to complete
both phases with this proposal. The proposed 16,309 square foot addition will take place as soon as
the City approves the proposal. Staff found that the expansion will actually bring the site into
compliance with the hard surface coverage maximum of 70%, decreasing it from the current
80.27%.
The comprehensive plan designates this property as commercial. The comprehensive plan will
have to be amended as part of the application process to designate the subject site as industrial.
The project is expected to receive Tax Increment Financing assistance through the City's Housing
and Redevelopment Authority.
Staff believes the proposal, combined with conditions proposed by staff, will be effective in
providing satisfactory development. Through the PUD ordinances, the proposed expansion to the
facility will be allowed and the city will be able to maintain control on the improvements and uses.
Staff finds the proposed PUD, plat and site plan to be acceptable and is recommending approval of
the preliminary and final stage of the PUD plan, preliminary and final plat, comprehensive plan
amendment, and site plan subject to proposed conditions.
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 4
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 1973, the subject site was zoned I-1, Industrial. On June 12, 1978, the City Council
approved a site plan for an office/warehouse/manufacturing facility on Lots 4 and 5, Burdick Park.
The site plan was approved with conditions and a variance to setback requirements (see Attachment
#1). The site was developed meeting the original conditions of approval.
On March 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a concept plan for the expansion of the
existing building and unanimously recommended approval of it, with an added condition of an
improved architectural appearance to the building and the incorporation of transit planning to the
site design. On April 12, 1993, the plan was reviewed by the City Council and approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
On June 16, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed preliminary and final stage of the PUD plan,
preliminary plat, comprehensive plan amendment, and the site plan. The application was approved
with a vote of three to two.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone 2.2 acres from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development. The following review constitutes an evaluation of the PUD request. The review
criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety
of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development
costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development
plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been
the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to
demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following
criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
1.Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 5
Finding. There is a stand of trees located on the soUthwest comer of the site. These trees are an
extension of a significant wooded area, owned by the HRA, separating the Target site from
the subject site. These trees include oak, elm, ash, basswood and box elder. Staff is
recommending a preservation easement over the southwest comer of the site be dedicated,
so that the trees are preserved. These trees are highly visible from the Hwy. 5 corridor and
their preservation will be an asset to the city. They will offer some screening of a portion of
the building and all loading areas. The applicant is also adding 15 new over-story trees and
5 evergreen plantings in this area to expand upon the preserved forest. Should there be
limited open space on site, staff is recommending 10 trees be placed on Outlot A,
Crossroads Plaza.
2.More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land
uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding. There is one lot left vacant adjacent and to the south of the existing building (Lot 3, Block
2, Burdick Park). This parcel is owned by the Chanhassen HRA. The existing building and
Lot 3 are located at the end of Kerber Boulevard, between Market Square and Target/City
owned outlot. The site is bordered on the south by Highway 5 right-of-way. Staff visited
the site to determine how the existing use fit in with the newly developed properties
adjacent to it and to determine if the site was suitable for commercial and therefore,
commercial zoning should be maintained. The remaining lot (Lot 3) is less than an acre in
size, is not easily seen from West 78th Street (where it would receive access) or Highway 5
and abuts the rear parking lot and outdoor storage area of Market Square and the Target
Store. With these circumstances, staff did not feel that a new user would find this site to be
appropriate for a commercial use. Also, staff felt that the existing facility was low level
industrial and has proven to be compatible with the surrounding property and uses.
3.High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing
and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher
quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Finding. The applicant is proposing to use materials compatible with the existing building.
Typically with a PUD, the city would require higher quality architectural design than what
exists and is being proposed. Staff worked closely with the applicant to improve the image
of the entire building. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the concept
plan with the condition that "The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the
architectural design of the existing building." In order to meet this condition, the applicant
will paint the rock face concrete block, which is the main material used on the building.
The building architectural facade will also be revised by removing the existing cedar hand
split roof shingles over the entrance canopies and replaced with colored ribbed steel panels
to accent the building. There will be a total of four entrances/canopies that will be alike in
appearance and they will be illuminated by recessed lights above the doors. These panels
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 6
will be similar in style to the Target and Market Square buildings. The applicant is
proposing to use that same accent color to paint three stripes, 8 inches wide, around the
building. The first stripe is proposed to be painted above the windows, the second below
the split faced block, and the third band will be around the edge of the top of the building.
Staff would prefer to see the proposed painted stripes be replaced by glazed tile to fit in with
the architectural theme set by Target and the Market Square Shopping Center to accent the
building. The applicant is also proposing to remove the existing roof top wood screen and
replace it with steel siding panels, to be painted a color that will not stand out.
Architectural appearance was one of the issues that members of the Planning Commission
disagreed upon. Commissioners Harberts, Scott, and Ledvina felt that the applicant had
improved the building facade considerably and the use of paint on the building should be
adequate. They also felt the use of tile should not be required. Commissioner Batzli and
Mancino wanted to see the use of tile as an accent on the building. They also were opposed
to the use of two different types of windows. The proposed addition will be two feet higher
than the existing building. Commissioner Mancino wanted the addition to be at the same
height as the existing building. She also wanted to see the accent strips to align on both the
existing and the new addition. To eliminate this problem, the applicant is proposing to use
pilasters to separate the old from the new addition. This will also reduce the impact of
elevation difference.
4.Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. Additional landscaping is proposed to be provided along the south. The back of the
building will be against the trees and all loading will be screened from view. It will also
expand upon a protected forest area considered important as part of the Highway 5 corridor.
5.Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. A guide plan
amendment is being requested and proposed for approval by staff for reasons outlined
previously.
6.Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park
and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan.
Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that park and trail fees be
received in lieu of park and trail dedication.
7.Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 7
Finding. Not applicable to this proposal.
8.Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the
clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. Chanhassen is actively involved with public transportation. The applicant has requested
from Southwest Metro Transit to provide public transit to the site probably as dial-a-ride or
van pool service. A list of all employees, the time their shift begins, and place of residency
was submitted with the application. Information will be made available to the employees
regarding bus schedules and park and ride lot locations. Also, the city is one of the few
suburban communities that is able to have a pedestrian oriented CBD. This is made
possible by the creation of a centralized "downtown." There is a park and ride facility in the
area and the downtown is connected by sidewalks.
9.Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts.
Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. Access to this site will be from Kerber Boulevard, via West 78th. The City Council has
recently approved the location of 4 traffic signals on West 78th Street. This will help
regulate traffic, which will allow easier access into the site.
The PUD ordinance establishes a same minimum district size but allows the city to waive this
standard under several conditions. We find that the proposed request is consistent with
condition #1 & #2 as follows and are recommending that the area requirement be waived.
Section 20-503. District size and location.
(a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five (5) acres, unless the applicant can
demonstrate the existence of one of the following:
(1)Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such
that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of
importance to the neighborhood or community.
(2)The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has
been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and
will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved
development.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 8
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request
additional improvements and some of the site's features can be better protected. The reduced
standards allow the expansion of a light manufacturing nonconforming business in the CBD. In
return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving:
· Screening of undesirable view of loading areas
ePreservation existing and requiring additional trees
· Improved architectural standards and appearance including; entry ways, roof top screening,
uniform architecture
· Encouraging Public Transit
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE PUD PLAN APPROVAL
Development Standards/Site Plan Review
Staff is proposing the following development standards be used for this PUD plan and incorporated
into the PUD agreement.
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD that would allow the expansion of an existing
office/light manufacturing use. It is intended that this use be operated and maintained to
preserve its low intensity character to ensure its compatibility with surrounding uses and the
greater Chanhassen Central Business District.
b.Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial/office or less intensive uses than
the existing use. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question
as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that
interpretation.
1.Light Manufacturing*
2.Retail**
3.Newspaper and small printing offices
4.Veterinary Clinic
5.Animal Hospital
6.Offices
*Light manufacturing is subject to the following limitations: -no visible emissions of smoke
-no noise emissions exceeding the MnPCA standards measured at the
property line.
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 9
-No outdoor, unscreened storage of materials, trash storage, shipping pallets
except for recycling materials. (This was a discussion item among
the Planning Commissioners. The metal that is collected for
recycling purposes can not be screened because it is produced in
large pieces. It will be located behind the building and will be
screened with landscaping.)
-No overnight parking of Semi tracks or inoperable vehicles-all parking must be accommodated on-site in a concealed location behind
the building
**Retail uses are subject to the following limitations: -signage consistent with approved sign package -retail uses must be consistent with the site's restricted parking
c. Setbacks
The setback of the majority of the building has been set by the existing portion. The addition will
maintain a minimum of 50 feet from Kerber Boulevard, and 55 feet from Highway 5. In the
PUD standards, the building setback is 30 feet from any local street/public right-of-way, and
50 feet from arterial and railroad lines. The proposed addition was located 46 feet from the
Railroad Right-of-Way on the most southerly comer. To meet staffs request, the applicant
revised the plans to meet the PUD setback requirements. The parking setback on the west
received a variance on June 12, 1978, to allow a zero setback from the lot line.
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
·
USE Lot Area mdg. Sq. ft.
P-~-~ lmperviolls Bldg. Parking
Surface Setback Setback
(}l'tlinsqCe 5 acres
43 70% North-30' North -20'
required South- 50' South-20'
West-30' West-20'
East-30' East-20'
19,980 67 80.27% W-45/N-25 W-0/N-25
E-55/8-80 E-20/S-na
16,309 59 60.330/0 W-45/N-na ****
E-50/ W-0/N-na
S-50 E-20/S-20
Existing 49,138
Proposed 48,025
Addition
Total 97,163'* 36,209 59 700/0
s.f./2.2
acres
** The City Code requires a minim~ area of five {5} acres for a'PUD unless
the applicant can demonstrate unique physical features of the site. There is no
way for the site to contain five acres as it is abutted by Highway 5, Pica Drive,
city property and Market Square. The site is also located adjacent to the Target
PUD. For these reasons, we believe it is reasonable to waive the 5 acre standard
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 10
as allowed by the ordinance.
recommended.
Waiver of PUD minimum area requirements is
**** Existing variance.
e. Building Materials and Design
Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that the addition use the same
concrete block material as the existing building. The entire building will
be painted. The ceder wood shingles will be removed and replaced by
ribbed steel panels. The roof top equipment's existing screening is
proposed to be removed and replaced by steel panels. Existing 3 foot wide
rusty doors will be removed and replaced by new ones, and the
introduction of three painted stripes on the building for accent.
Finding. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design.
.
All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Concrete block,
same as the type used on the existing building, shall be used. Color
shall be introduced through colored block. Glazed tile should be
used to create the accent 8" wide stripes on the building rather than
paint.
2.All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the
primary structure. All ground mounted equipment, trash storage,
etc. to be fully screened by compatible masonry walls.
3.All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by materials compatible
with the building. Wood screen fences are prohibited.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
Applicant's Proposal. The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan that shows
the addition of 20 trees. The existing trees along the southwest comer of
the site will be preserved. Tree preservation is a positive, ff minor,
element.
Finding. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled
out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. If open space
was not available on the subject site to place all the proposed trees, five
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 11
trees shall be located along the south portion of the site, and 10 trees on
Outlot A, Crossroads Plaza. They are required to extend the protected
forested area eastward. Ultimately, we anticipate there being additional
plantings on city-owned land further to the south. This reforestation is
consistent with the goals of draft Hwy. 5 planning efforts and to screen
less desirable views of the south edge of the CBD. Trees should be over-
story and evergreen. They shall be selected from the approved tree list. All
plant materials must meet minimum size specifications. Tree plantings
may be installed partially on city owned land located adjacent to the site.
1.All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped,
covered with plantings and/or lawn material.
2.Unscreened outdoor storage is prohibited.
3.Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways.
4.Tree preservation areas shall be clearly staked and marked by snow
fence prior to the start of grading. Staff will use its discretion to
require minor revisions to grading including the potential use of
retaining walls, ff it appears that tree preservation will benefit.
Protected trees lost due to development activity shall be replaced on
a caliper inch basis.
5.A satisfactory letter of credit to ensure compliance with approved plans
shall be provided prior to the start of grading.
g. sig age
No signage is proposed at this time, however, the site contain an existing wall
mounted sign.
1.Each business shall be allowed one wall mounted sign. The total of all
wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent
of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are
mounted.
2.All signs require a separate permit.
3.The signage will have consistency throughout the development and will
use materials compatible with the building. Signs shall be an
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 12
architectural feature, and shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a
foundation.
4.Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
he
5.Temporary signs will be allowed in a manner consistent with the city
sign code.
Recessed light will be introduced. These lights will be located above the entrance
doors, and tucked under the new canopies.
1.All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light
level for site lighting shall be no more than V~. candle at the property
line. This does not apply to street lighting.
2.Glare, whether direct or reflected as differentiated from general
illumination, shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from
which it originates.
3.Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off
automatically as activated by yearly conditions.
4.Light poles shall use shoe box light standards.
Streets/Access / Parkin~
Access to the site is obtained via Picha Drive and Kerber Drive. There are two
access points onto Picha Drive which eventually leads into Target. Staff is
recommending a stop sign be installed at each exit point on Picha Drive. There
will be a total of 59 parking stalls. The City Code would only require 43 parking
spaces (including one for a company vehicle). Therefore, 59 parking spaces are
not necessary and the applicant can remove some of the parking area and
replace it with landscaped open space. Some of the proposed parking is an
extension of existing parking at the rear of the building. The applicant is
proposing to continue to have this parking adjacent to the westerly lot line with
no setback. This area abuts open space that has existing vegetation and which
will never be developed. Staff would prefer to keep the parking in this area
rather than add parking to the front of the building. Therefore, staff does not
object to keeping the zero setback for the rear parking.
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 13
Utilities
The existing building is connected to municipal sewer and water. The plans
propose to extend another sewer and water line to serve the building expansion.
The appropriate connection and hookup fees will be required at the time of
building permit issuance.
Grading and Drainage
The grading plan does not indicate the existing underlying ground contours. It is
difficult to determine the amount of earthwork involved with this expansion
although it appears the end use contours are acceptable. A storm sewer line is
proposed to be extended from the existing storm sewer in Picha Drive near the
Target entrance to the southwest comer of the parking lot. The catch basin will
catch rtmoff from the new parking lot, driveway and building rooftop areas. The
storm sewer will convey runoff to the newly created retention pond on the Target
site. Since the storm sewer connection is within the City's boulevard, the
applicant should escrow $500.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration.
Connection to the City's storm sewer will need to be inspected by City staff. The
site plan proposes concrete curb and gutter around the perimeter of the new
driveway and parking lot. The existing westerly parking lot behind the building
currently sheet drains westerly into the woods. Staff is comfortable with this
drainage pattern and recommends no further drainage improvements at this
time. Staff is requesting site drainage calculations prepared by a professional
engineer be submitted to the City for review.
Erosion Control
Erosion control measures are not illustrated on the plans. Staff recommends
that erosion control fence ~e I) be installed along the easterly, southerly and a
portion of the westerly property line at the grading limits. Based on the
landscape plan, it appears all disturbed areas will be restored with sod.
Park and Recreation
The property will be subject to park and trail fees. These fees are to be collected
at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current
industrial/commercial fee rates are $3,000/acre for park, and $1,000/acre for
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 14
In determining the acreage to be assessed, the Park and Recreation Director was
unable to locate a building permit showing that park and trail fees had been paid
on the existing building. Assuming that the platting incorporates both lots and
that the original permit did not include park and trail fees, the entire plat
(95,394 sq. ft.) can be subjected to fees. If fees were paid on the original permit,
only the addition (34,236 sq. ft.) will be subject to park and trail fees.
The applicant is objecting to pay park and trail fees for the existing building.
Staff is leaving this matter up to the discretion of the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the folloxa6ng
motion:
"Ihe City Council approves the rezoning of 2.2 acres (97,163 square feet) of BG,
General Business to PUD, approve preliminary and final development plans,
preliminary and final plat approval and comprehensive plan amendment from
commercial to office/industrial as shown in plans dated April 19, 1993, revised
June 18, 1993, and with a waiver of the 5 acre minimum PUD zone requirement
subject to the following conditions:
1.Preliminary and final plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2,
Burdick Park into one lot with appropriate easements. All typical utility
and drainage easements shall be dedicated to the city on the final plat.
Plat documents need to be prepared by the applicant.
2.Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
Development.
3.The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural
design of the existing building. Rock face concrete block shall remain as
the main material used on the building and shall be painted. Ail ceder
wood shingles shall be replaced with ribbed steel panels. However, the
accent stripes shall be created by using paint.
4.There shall be no unscreened outdoor storage permitted. Existing outdoor
storage to be placed in approved, screened enclosures where applicable.
5.Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the property
in question from the HRA.
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 15
6.Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.
7.The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer calculations prepared by a
professional engineer for the City to review.
8.The applicant shall provide a $500 security for connection to the City's storm
sewer line and boulevard restoration on Picha Drive. This fee will be
refunded upon satisfactorily completing connection and restoration of the
City's boulevard.
9.Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the perimeter along the
grading limits.
10.Park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of application of building permit
(on the new structure).
11.Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
12.Stop signs shall be installed at the exit points to Picha Drive.
13.Meet the conditions of the Fire Marshal.
14.Should open space for planting the proposed trees be problematic and limited
on the subject site, 10 trees shall be located on Outlot A, Crossroads
Plaza.
16.The PUD Agreement shall include the following conditions:
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD that would allow the expansion of an
existing office/light manufacturing use. It is intended that this use be
operated and maintained to preserve its low intensity character to ensure
its compatibility with surrounding uses and the greater Chanhassen
Central Business District.
b.Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial/office or less
intensive uses than the existing use. The uses shall be limited to those as
Chaska Machine
June 16, 1993
Page 16
defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets
the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation.
1.Light Manufacturing*
2.Retail**
3.Newspaper and small printing offices
4.Veterinary Clinic
5.Animal Hospital
6.Offices
*Light manufacturing is subject to the following limitations: -no visible emissions of smoke -no noise emissions exceeding the MnPCA standards
measured at the property line
-no outdoor, unscreened storage of materials, trash storage,
shipping pallets except for recycling materials
-no overnight parking of semi trailers or inoperable vehicles -all parking must be accommodated on-site in a concealed
location behind the building
**Retail uses are subject to the following limitations: -signage consistent with approved sign package -retail uses must be consistent with the site's restricted
parking
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 15, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, and Craig
Claybaugh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjornhom and Kurt Papke
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt
Saam, Assistant City Engineer; Mak Sweidan, Engineer; and Kristin Wentzlaff, Planning Intern
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REOUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR
A DIRECTORY SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
KERBER BOULEVARD AND WEST 78l'a STREET, STEVEN HANSEN.
Kristin Wentzlaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioners asked for clarification
on the size, height and location of the sign. Steve Hansen was present representing his father, the
owner of the building. He asked for clarification of the height on the sign. Commissioner
Claybaugh asked the applicant ff he had concerns with the tree adjacent to the sign. He stated
that with the sign being placed 10 feet farther back, it shouldn't impact the tree. Commissioner
Feik asked about the non-conforming signs and the temporary leasing signs. Commissioner
Slagle asked how to limit window signage on the building. Commissioner Lillehaug suggested
placing the sign at an angle to provide more separation from the tree. Chairman Sacchet opened
the public hearing. No one spoke at the public hearing and the public hearing was closed. The
Planning Commission was in concurrence with the plan and made the following motion.
Claybaugh moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
PUD Amendment 093-1, Section (g), Signage to allow a monument sign to be placed at the
intersection of Kerber Boulevard and Picha Drive, with the following sign standards:
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The sign must be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and shall not exceed sixty-four
(64) square feet.
The sign must be outside of the thirty (30) foot sight triangle.
The sign must maintain a ten (10) foot setback from any property line.
If the sign is illuminated in the future, it must be back lit or cast down at an 90° angle.
The sign must be built consistent with the plans submitted on 7/9/03.
Signage constructed on this property in the future must follow the Industrial Office Park
district sign ordinance (Sec. 20-1304) and the original PUD sign package.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
In summary, the Planning Commission fully supports this application and thinks it's appropriate
to have the signage there. They'd like to see the non-conforming signs out and have the
engineering conditions added when it comes in for a sign permit.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 15, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, and Craig
Claybaugh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjornhom and Kurt Papke
STAFF PRE,SENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt
Saam, Assistant City Engineer; Mak Sweidan, Engineer; and Kristin Wentzlaff, Planning Intern
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REOUFST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR
A DIRECTORY SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
KERBER BOULEVARD AND WEST 78i'a STREET~ STEVEN HANSEN.
Krisfin Wentzlaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff.
Claybaugh: Yeah, you're limiting both to the 8 feet on height that I read somewhere in the report
64 square feet.
Wentzlaff: 64, actually it complies with the 64 square feet of sign area.
Claybaugh: The latest revision that was submitted?
Wentzlaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. And I'm assuming, I don't know if the city forester looked at it or not. I see
that they just have pier foundation going down below the frost line for the signage. No concerns
about the root structure for the adjacent tree?
Wentzlaff: I didn't have any comments on that at all from anybody.
Claybaugh: Did she look at it do you know?
Wentzlaff: Did I?
Claybaugh: Did Jill have an opportunity to take a look at it?
Wentzlaff: Yes, I did go to the site. Where the tree is drawn in on the site plan isn't it's exact
location so when I walked over there, it looked like it could fit if they wanted to try to make it fit.
Claybaugh: Okay. Just so I'm clear, did Jill look at it?
Wentzlaff: Oh I'm sorry, no. Jill did not.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003
Claybaugh: Jill did not, okay. Alright, that's all the questions I have for staff.
Sacchet: Any questions Bruce?
Feik: Just one. What is the date of the revised drawing then?
Wentzlaff: The 9th of July.
Sacchet: Questions Rich?
Slagle: Yeah, just one. What was, if you could put that image up again of that sign.
Wentzlaff: Of the original?
Slagle: No, no, right there. What am I seeing for the height?
Wentzlaff: 8 feet.
Slagle: Just 8 even?
Wentzlaff: Yep, and then once you add the architectural structure around it, it makes it 10 feet 6
inches.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Steve, any questions?
Lillehaug: Yes. Was there anything mitigated, and this is probably a tough one, but was there
anything mitigated in lieu of allowing a monument sign with the original PUD?
Wentzlaff: Actually I'll try to answer. I'm not sure if I'll be able to or not but in the original
PUD there was no signage proposed at the time. It just said in there that they could each have
one, each tenant could have one wall mounted sign.
Lillehaug: Okay, that's good enough. Thanks.
Sacchet: Real quick.
Slagle: Just one more.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: On page 2 of the June 16, 1993 proposal summary, and I'm just curious more for my own
knowledge. At the bottom of paragraph one it says staff will detail the reasons for the split vote
further in the report. I don't know if I saw that when I went through that in the report and when
Steve asked that question, I'm just wondering is there something that we aren't seeing. I tried to
go through the pages to find the reasons that staff would have described the split vote. If you
don't have it that's fine. I was just curious.
Sacchet: It's in the attachment. The June 16, 1993 proposal summary.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003
Slagle: Proposal summary from the 1993 Planning Commission and it says at the bottom of
paragraph one, staff will detail the reason for this split vote.
Sacchet: At the end of the first paragraph Sharmeen.
Slagle: And I might have missed it but I know I went through it 3 times trying to find if there was
some interesting circumstances surrounding this application that would prove in front to know,
and if there isn't, that's okay. Just curious.
Sacchet: Yeah, well I think it's a valid question. The same what Steve brought up. We don't
have any recollection or knowledge at this point? Okay.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Now I have a practical question. Going back to the actual current staff report on page 4.
There's a statement, there are currently two signs at the site. One monument sign, one roof sign.
And that those must be removed. I don't see a condition to that effect. Is that an oversight that
we could add a condition or is there no need for a condition to that effect?
Generous: Mr. Chair, those are violations of the current ordinance so we will enforce that
through a code enforcement procedure.
Sacchet: But it wouldn't hurt to make it a condition in other words.
Generous: Well except for this is like a rezoning. You can't have a conditional.
Sacchet: Oh we cannot have conditional.
Generous: You can put criteria for the signage in there as part of, like any rezoning or design
standards but you can't say do something else.
Sacchet: Okay. And then, then you'd probably be able to answer that one. The math, we say it's
limited to 64 square feet but then at the same time we say it's 6 Va feet by 12 feet, so the
measurement of 64 square feet is really just for the sign where the letters are?
Wentzlaff: Yes.
Sacchet: Is that how we measure? The structure around it is not included?
Wentzlaff: But it is included in the height.
Sacchet: It' s included in the height, but not in the square footage of the sign.
Wentzlaff: Right.
Sacchet: That's only the part that gets the letters?
Wentzlaff: Exactly.
Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003
Sacchet: That's an interesting way, okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you.
With that I would like to ask whether the applicant wants to come forward and give us your
thoughts please. Please state your name and address for the record please.
Steve Hansen: My name's Steve Hansen and I live in Minnetonka, but my father owns the
building that I'm representing. The only thing about the height, I think we can work with that. I
just wanted to clarify that the 8 feet would be the top of the roof, is that what I'm heating, or
would that be the top of the sign?
Wentzlaff: 8 feet for height means it would be the top of the sign.
Feik: Top of the structure.
Sacchet: Top of the whole structure.
Wentzlaff: Entire structure.
Steve Hansen: So I would just have to reduce this signage down to 2 ¥2 feet shorter to make up
for that.
Sacchet: You think that's workable?
Steve Hansen: Yeah, I think we can make that work.
Sacchet: Anything else you want to add?
Steve Hansen: No.
Sacchet: Anybody have questions here.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I just have a question. Perhaps you can answer the question regarding the
adjacent tree. Any concerns for that?
Steve Hansen: I guess we'd be interested in not harming the trees. We had quite a bit to work
with.
Wentzlaff: There was quite a bit of space.
Steve Hansen: In fact being that we have to be 10 feet farther back, it will probably put us farther
away from the tree...where it's drawn.
Claybaugh: That's all the question I had.
Feik: I had one. Would you please address the two non-conforming signs and your plans for
those and timing.
Steve Hansen: Yeah, there actually will not be any need. In fact that's probably part of the, we
really had no good way of addressing all the new tenants. Before we just had two tenants in there
and there really wasn't a need for a lot of signage with those two tenants. Now, the major tenant
has left in October and we've been subdividing it so there is going to be more need for more signs
so I'm trying to be a little more proactive before it gets too crazy with everybody doing their own
Planning Commission Meeting- July 15, 2003
little signage, so I think this will clean it up a lot better and we would definitely remove that
immediately.
Feik: And I'd like to follow up, as long as you're both here for just a moment. The two non-
conforming signs were highlighted in the back. The status of the leasing sign on the roof, is that?
Wentzlaff: That is one of the non-conforming signs.
Feik: That is one? And the other one is the.
Wentzlaff: The Hansen Home Tech sign.
Feik: Okay, that was the other one.
Wentzlaff: The actual, the window signs are just fine where they are. They don't require a
permit.
Feik: What is the ability of a landlord to post additional temporary signs for leasing in
Chanhassen? I'd like that clarified so that if he still does have vacancy and there is the ability to
have a temporary sign or something, we at least get it out here and clear. Typically leasing signs
available 4 by 8 or something and a temporary nature?
Wentzlaff: Yes, and you need to apply for a permit and roof signs are prohibited entirely.
Feik: I understand that, but he would have the ability to replace that leasing sign as a ground
based sign of some kind.
Generous: Or even a wall sign. It just can't be on the roof.
Feik: Alright, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Rich.
Slagle: Couple questions. You mentioned that you lost a recent major tenant which caused to
sort of subdivide the building if you will into multiple tenants. What are your thoughts as far as
the maximum number of tenants you're going to have? Right now you've got 12 spaces. We
don't anticipate to see you again asking for 18 or 24.
Steve Hansen: No. I think it will be 10. We added 2 more just in case so I think that would be
more than enough.
Slagle: Fair enough. The other question I have, and this might be more to staff. When we had
the strip mall with Giant Panda and what not in front of us, if you remember we had that sign
issue and one of the things we discussed was all of the window signs that were being plastered.
I'm not so sure that I think that that's aesthetically a nice look when the tenants, so do you have
thoughts and staff have thoughts as to how we're going to limit hand made signs throughout the
windows.
Wentzlaff: I guess I'm not familiar with the other development that you're talking about but in
the ordinance it says that 50 percent of window coverage is the limit and I haven't heard anything
else besides that.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003
Generous: The city does not permit those so they don't have to come into us for any approvals.
As part of our code amendment discussion, maybe that' s something we could look at.
Slagle: Well I'm just asking more in the vein of the landlord owner is here requesting something
of us, and you know you put out a sign for 12 tenants and then the 12 tenants have their name on
the sign and they also decided they're going to you know, plaster the windows with hand made
signs. I don't know. Just a thought.
Steve Hansen: Yeah, I guess that's kind of why we're, we are trying to eliminate that.
Slagle: I guess I'm asking you maybe is if we grant this, maybe you could have some discussion
with your tenants. Say hey, we got you a sign out front. Let's try and minimize the signage in
the windows.
Steve Hansen: Yeah, I think we're trying to make the numbers be the only really the only sign on
the doors for the tenants so if we make those large enough. That's why I was kind of thinking of
12 inches for each, but I think we can get it down to 8 inches and still make the numbers work so.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Steve.
Sacchet: Expanding on that same idea, and I kind of asked this of staff, they can still put
individual wall signs for each of these independent businesses, right?
Wentzlaff: Yes.
Sacchet: So they can get rid of their little hand signs with sticks and clubs. It's just not very
flavorful. Okay. And then one more quick question here, this is kind of a statement also but that
sign to minimize the impact to the tree, would you consider instead of placing that at a 45 degree
angle, maybe skewing it a little so you don't bring it any closer to the sign. Turn it a little to get
your 10 foot separation. Would you consider that rather than moving it towards the tree?
Steve Hansen: Yeah.
Sacchet: And that's at your option but I would ask that I guess. That you take a look at that
please.
Steve Hansen: I was kind of thinking well maybe we could just go 10 feet back and that would
actually put that farther away from the tree.
Sacchet: That could work.
Steve Hansen: Not go any closer to the tree.
Lillehaug: Anything to make the signs visible because it's tough the signs back them. You don't
have too many cars driving past there so.
Steve Hansen: No. Not yet. Not yet with the sign maybe a lot. Thanks though.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2003
Lillehaug: Yep, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to come forward
and comment on this item, this is your mm. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring
it back to the commission for comments. Do you want to start Steve?
Lillehaug: Sure, real quick. I fully support it. The building needs a monument sign there to help
attract business there. If we could do something else to help out I would be willing to support
that too. With limitations obviously but they need some help back there so I fully support it,
thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve.
Slagle: Likewise.
Sacchet: Ditto. Bruce.
Feik: I support it provided we can get it down to the 8 feet.
Sacchet: Keep it at the regulated height, okay.
Claybaugh: Likewise. Support it with the conditions staff has in place.
Sacchet: Same thing. Okay. Well looks like it's pretty clear. I have one quick question from
staff. There's engineering report attached that has two conditions on it and I was just wondering,
they are not part of our recommendation because what you said Bob before, that we cannot attach
conditions basically. Okay.
Generous: As a part of a sign permit review we can address that.
Sacchet: Again?
Generous: As part of the sign permit review, we can address grading issues and.
Sacchet: As part of the sign permit, not part of the PUD amendment.
Generous: Not part of the PUD. You're just making the standards really.
Sacchet: Okay, so will they have to come back for a sign permit?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: And then at that point we can ask that the roof sign and the other non-conforming sign
has to go.
Generous: No, that's in process now.
Sacchet: That's in process now, but then the utility...
Generous: This specific permit, yes. We can look at this sign and the tree issue. Grading issues.
Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003
Sacchet: Okay. So we surely would like that to be done at that time. With that I certainly don't
have an issue at all with this application. I'm willing to take a motion.
Claybaugh: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD
Amendment g93-1, Section (g), signage to allow the monument sign to be placed at the
intersection of Kerber Boulevard and Picha Drive with the following sign standards, 1 through 6.
And do we need to note the attachments as well as part of that?
Sacchet: Not really, do we?
Claybaugh: Okay.
Feik: Second with a friendly amendment please.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Feik: I believe on item number 5 we need to change the date to 7-9-03. Is that correct?
Wentzlaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: It's accepted.
Ciaybaugh moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
PUD Amendment ~93-1, Section (g), Signage to allow a monument sign to be placed at the
intersection of Kerber Boulevard and Picha Drive, with the following sign standards:
.
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The sign must be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and shall not exceed sixty-four
(64) square feet.
The sign must be outside of the thirty (30) foot sight triangle.
The sign must maintain a ten (10) foot setback from any property line.
If the sign is illuminated in the future, it must be back lit or cast down at an 90° angle.
The sign must be built consistent with the plans submitted on 7/9/03.
Signage constructed on this property in the future must follow the Industrial Office Park
district sign ordinance (Sec. 20-1304) and the original PUD sign package.
AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: This will go to the City Council on the 11th of August and will go for a decision there.
Slagle: As part of the smmnm3t if we can make note that, in Kristen's first presentation it was
unanimous vote.
Sacchet: Very important summary comments.
Feik: And well presented might I add.
Slagle: Absolutely.
Wentzlaff: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting -July 15, 2003
Sacchet: In summary for council, we fully support this application and we think it's most
appropriate to have that signage there. We'd like to see the non-conforming signs out and then
certainly have the engineering conditions added when it comes in for sign permit, but we fully
support the way this is in front of us. Anything anybody wants to add to this for council
summary? No? Alright, thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR HIDDEN VALLEY TO ALLOW A PRESCHOOL MONTESSORI
AS A PERMITTED USE AT THE DISCOVERY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH,
LOCATED AT 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST, ASIM H. OADRI.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Johnson
Salfeha Asim
Asim Qadri
8026 Erie Avenue
8795 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
8795 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Rich.
Slagle: I can start. The size of the playground, do we know what that's going to be? I can wait.
I can wait til later. You don't know?
AI-Jaff: No.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Yes. The current zoning, it's a PI district for the church.
AI-Jaff: Actually it's Planned Unit Development. When it was first, back in 1988 we used the PI
zoning. No, I'm sorry, back in 1985 we used the P1 zoning. We no longer have that zoning
classification. It's equivalent to Planned Unit Development.
Lillehaug: So since we don't have that classification anymore, is it just designated something
else then?
AI-Jaff: Correct. It was rezoned in.
Lillehaug: It was rezoned? Okay. And if I would have read this more closely I probably would
have seen it.
A1-Jaff: If you look at the.
Lillehaug: Let me get to my question here.