5. Sign Variance for Americana Comm. Bank 1 C I T Y O F PC DATE: 1/6/93 5
CIIANHAEI CC DATE: 1/25/93
∎ � CASE #: 92 -11 Sign Variance
1 -
1 STAFF REPORT
I
II PROPOSAL; An 8 foot Setback Variance for the Construction of a Monument Sign on the
1 - Americana Community Bank Site
1Z
Q LOCATION: 600 West 79th Street - North of Hwy. 5 and east of Market Boulevard
U
1 EL
APPLICANT: KRJ Associates
g 4 P. O. Box 635
Long Lake, MN 55356
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District Action by at) Aa,a►►iar
Ehtorsed
I R e;acte� ed ii-1
ACREAGE: 70,000 square feet DJ
Date Submit:el to Commission
I DENSITY: _ - -
Date SubmitlA to Council
ADJACENT ZONING 1 -D.-93
I AND LAND USE: N - BG and CBD;Filly's and Country Suites Hotel
4 S - BH; vacant
E - BH; vacant
1 Q ' W - BG; Market Square and fountain
W WATER AND SEWER: Is available to the site
I F. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains Americana Community Bank.
' (1,
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
1
1
F
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1 Americana Community Bank
Sign Permit Variance
I January 6, 1993
Page 2
I PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
This request is for the construction of a 75 square foot monument sign to be located 2 feet from
I the westerly property line of the Americana Community Bank site. The base of the sign
encroaches into a drainage and utility easement. The zoning ordinance prohibits any structures
be built within any drainage and utility easements.
1 The design of the sign is also being revised from what the Planning Commission and City
Council originally approved on March 9, 1992.
1 BACKGROUND
I On February 19, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan for Americana
Community Bank site. The plans showed 1 monument identification sign proposed at the
westerly edge of the site. The sign had an area of 70 square feet with no base and a pitched
1 element to it. The plans also reflected the sign location at 2 feet from the westerly property line.
It was an oversight by staff not to note the setback; however, one of the conditions of approval
of the site plan for Americana Community Bank stated that the applicant must obtain a sign
1 permit prior to erecting any signage on site. On November 18, 1992, staff conducted an
inspection prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy for the bank. At that time, it was noted that
there was a sign base built close to the property line. Staff noted that the plans reflected a 2 foot
1 setback; however, a sign permit had not been issued approving that location. Staff informed the
applicant that the location of the sign does not conform with the sign ordinance and that the
ordinance requires a 10 foot setback from the property line. The applicant elected to apply for
I a sign variance.
I The applicant is requesting an 8 foot setback variance for the purpose of erecting the monument
sign. The zoning ordinance requires that all monument signs in the BH District be located 10
feet from a property line.
I The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance
unless they find the following facts:
1 a. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue
hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
I surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority
of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision
is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed
I neighborhoods pre- existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- existing
standards without departing from them meet this criteria.
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank f
Sign Permit Variance
January 6, 1993
Page 3
Finding - There were a number of factors that contributed to the hardship in this case. The
oversight by staff to notice the sign shown at a setback of 2 feet from the property
line was one factor. However, a condition of approval of the site plan noted that
the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on the site.
The second factor was that the applicant revised the monument sign plans prior
to consulting with staff. The original plans did not show a base. Staff first found
out about the revisions in the plan when a site inspection was conducted for the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Had the applicant applied for a the sign
permit prior to construction of the base, staff would have pointed out that the
setback of 10 feet must be maintained and the design must be consistent with
what was originally approved by the Planning Commission and City Council
reflecting the pitched element. Approval of this application will create a precedent
in the district. 1
b. That 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 a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. ,
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land. '
Finding - The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or 1
income potential of the parcel.
d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship.
Finding - The difficulty is self created. Had the applicant applied for a sign permit prior to
building the base of the sign, staff would have pointed out that the 10 foot setback
must be maintained.
e. That 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 of land is located.
Finding - 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 of land is
located.
f. That 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
1
.1
Americana Community Bank
Sign Permit Variance
1 January 6, 1993
Page 4
1 danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
' Finding - The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish
1 or impair property values within the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On January 6, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed this application. They wanted to
' separate the design issues from the location of the sign. They commented that the pitched
element was part of the site plan review approval. It was designed to be consistent with the
architecture of the bank building. Changing the design of the sign would require an amendment
to the site plan and should be processed accordingly. They agreed that the pitched element
should remain on the sign as was shown on the site plan approved on March 9, 1992, and
recommended the City Council approve the sign location variance requiring that the pitched
element remain incorporated in the design. They also agreed that the number of names on the
sign should not be controlled. They voted to approve the variance with the following condition:
' 1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the
city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while performing
maintenance within the utility and drainage easement.
1 RECOMMENDATION
1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies a variance to Sign Permit #92 -11."
' Should the City Council recommend approval of a variance to the sign permit, staff recommends
that the following conditions be adopted:
1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the
PP gr tY �' g
1 city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while performing
maintenance within the utility and drainage easement.
' 2. The applicant utilize the sign design approved on March 9, 1992, with the site plan
approval.
3. The number of tenants permitted to utilize the sign panel is not regulated by the city."
1
1
Americana Community Bank 1
Sign Permit Variance
January 6, 1993 1
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Design of sign approved by Planning Commission and City Council.
2. New proposed sign design. 1
3. Letter from applicant.
4. Location map.
5. Application. 1
6. Staff report.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated January 6, 1993. i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• 1
i
1
1
1
1
1
•
I �`
AL TENANT ONE
' 111 � p ` ` TENANT TWO - Ei
MONUMENT SIGN pia• = ro°
•
1
•
� Oes o� ;can aPP�ov� b Ploo\ifn Commis
1 • p.X.l,4 Ci }/ crc ■
•
16'•0
15
I
j j • 1
1 I N:.; i 4,Ni r c,u
1 1 4.Stppy LIGHTED ' — . ,rti I
BUJE VINYL 361 36JC 3 ,
c Ld I 1
I I ADHERED TO NMTE FLEX. 2447 Rn5 kc o L I I
/ LIGHTED BOTH SIDES (coder on Other We) ore sCe ONLY! j I
�
1r AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK BUILDING !LV ^L g^, = CABINET
r ^-1.,.",ri, 7,pr irt:Tyiii,1i1`71 gyp" �, ,. i,. Fn r t COLOR
i ti D : e :• 1 'I'' ° :
Tr . :: � : •.i: �,..i �,� r T 1 ' i ri7 s .+ LACRYL jt 471,
AIT011HEY8ATLAW 49
SERIES S :17 t
SERIES 20
. I Miles Lord Attorney 6 TENANTS IVORY BLUE COPY 3M 3630-36 1--— jC?SRTS
COPY 4.5
I Avantage Travel UNIGLOBE II I
- L J t I
lilliatiVIIIPM
BRICK BASE & LENTILE BY OTHER
I 1 :1' -8' 1
3' -0'
SIGN ELEVATION
1/2" = 1' -0"
J Cp Pv 'Cd Si r\ c.ei n ,
.. 11111 MN .. .. 11111 .. .. NM .. .O MB .. .. .. l• , 2
1
a VARIANCE REQUEST SUMMARY
1
AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK
I 600 WEST 79TH STREET
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
1
Through the course of this project the Bank has made every effort to work with
1 the City to assure a successful project. The monument sign has always been
represented at the location which the base was installed, and had received both
I Planning Commission and City Council approvals. Upon applying for a sign permit
to put the signage unit on top, we were informed that due to an oversight, the
base had been located to close to the property line.
1 We feel that the monument sign at the location where the base has been installed
will present no problems to the city and we ask that a variance be granted to
I allow the completion of the sign. It should be noted that we are over 20' from
Market Blvd and 12' from the sidewalk. As reference Market Square has two
monument signs, one on Market Blvd and one on West 78th St., both which are
1 closer to the road and sidewalk than we are requesting.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• psis - toc.•'r6 •?. .• R''Ca+ b e. . tN lr nrioNS
r,ic c. •'TEO Y' —: viN4 t. DE WhtiTE µ'/ EL
6 nth PW� ' � . - Nb s . �
.7e N 7t• ti'se E ,. �i�cW��s` WirrTlt lS To � ■ �,!N
• "ErE _
—gde �\ ••• '171' L V et u'f aE: _ — - _ • At �`, ' t ' - f_e)::0"t I g ;,•,c C t'' 6' r z' -t ., 1 R T , V ' • 1 II -
-• 11 \ \!. / IVS. ,
NI\
1 -f.,. -� -43 A Ala . .;: . .. .. .. .. .9 OOOOOO .. ... ... -,
i • 1ST /v , ‘/It rt _, \V 43. qq
ftl it'% \ 7 . / � 7 2• o C V� .. iT a tot — NW ITJM ) 8 - 9l • �y t • WM L c '. } �_• .1,11-1
J r a � I •
*P
4 \ \.\\.' � • � r !c.' �c 't'Iw� P F• 1 1:: , I ..— • ._ . 42 ' • ! t'
P TM!.. \ T___. ___ i
. T - ill + r� a o'= �• o
4 "L - n
It • .14..0. - • �+ \ ` � lljj • L7lYZ l 1 _ � --- "�� _ •�
,I1 4. •.trite - 4 f • • •• ••• • � • •' ts
\ \ II , f � GI N • -P • ° � .. p er , ,..r: .+ � 'c tC
0 I •
,.. ,Ir I - ...., [ i • " � 5 r • c j• i t r,
<I t \ -.., - 01101
1
. 7 I ‘ - ' V :"::'\ .■ ''‘ - .. PVe.C. i El i
‘ . . In , .,... . , _____ _ .. 1 .. s, I .,
N' 0. <. a .: 'ice P G,: •
• v •-• • '.J.r• ph ) ' n ,• 1 ( ° Wi ipils5-7.-,„---.
• \ . ‘
r
y s �� �i���ds wi I CJs •
NORTH • c f4"1,;)c � ,v F q- / ` ��■
• . EWWI5GXi� P k` '
ow "N i�L
SITE PLAN 1•r�:t --I uN' 1- g v
4
A m" It
an ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! -
?
1
S
:f
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 •
(612) 937 -1900
1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
t
1 APPLICANT; eiz _l ,44., �-r OWNER;Amp M.v.1 sr( 1504 ►c.
ADDRESS: Pr). C3ou 6 S ADDRESS: CICO •.! ?a ST'
1 ' .Ln .4r. L iv4 . e,A,4.+4a ass tr.1 , hi
1 TELEPHONE (Day time) 473- /2O8 TELEPHONE: 13'7 - 9 Si C.
I 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision
1 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW /Easements
1 3. Grading /Excavation Permit 13. Variance
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit
I
5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal
6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
1 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees /Attomey Cost - (Collected after
approval of item)
1 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees
9. Sign Plan Review •
I
10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $
1
I A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
1 Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8�h" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
I * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
1
PROJECT NAME Al C:fo SA
LOCATION (vO 0 V/ csr '79 4 • 1 ' STY-v.-TX
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1,411.41- 70. voo so. of I.or / 14.oc.K, l 1
egos%An P I A2-2.o Pt:
1
PRESENT ZONING, 13
REQUESTED ZONING
1
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION,
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 1
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 61 c..) VA.2
•
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information,
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying,
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. 1 have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the'
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further'
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
1 also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records. '
ia
gnature of • p • cant ate
•
411P), /02/5 . 7 (V
• ature of Fee Owner I' D a t e
Application Received on rz 7 — / a —fee Paid i��ipt No. 41 L1
0
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission /Board of Adjustments and Appeals on .
1 T T O F PC DATE: 2/19/92
, l'it C U A 111 A ll CC DATE: 3/9/92
1 CASE #: "92 -1 SITE
90 -2 VAC 89 -19 - SUB
1
1 STAFF REPORT
1 PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 11,468 Square Foot Bank and Office
Building - Americana Community Bank
2) Replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza, into two parcels
1 1 with areas of 70,000 Square Feet and 164,762 Square Feet
Z 3) Vacation of a cross access easement and an underlying utility
1 Q and drainage easement located on Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads
V Plaza 2nd Addition
1 . L LOCATION: North of Highway 5, east of Market Boulevard, south of
a. o Chica Milwaukee, St. Paul, Pacific Railroad
Chicago, � and Paci
1 < APPLICANT: KRJ Associates City of Chanhassen
P 0 Box 635
L. Lam,,, MN 7.1356
PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District
1 ACREAGE: 234,762 Sq Ft (Plat) 70,000 Sq Ft (Site Plan)
1 DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
I LAND USE: N - BG and CBD, Filly's and Country Suites
S - BH, Vacant
E - BH, Vacant
1 Q W - BG, Vacant (Future Market Square) and
Fountain
1 LI WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
w
1 PHYSICAL CHARAC 1ER.: The site has been extensively altered due to the .
(n construction of Market Boulevard and West 79th Street.
The site is flat and devoid of tree cover.
1
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial -
1
1
•
Americana Community Bank 1
February 19, 1992
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
At the time staff submitted their February 19, 1992, report to the Planning Commission, the site
1
plan for the Americana Bank was for a smaller building than what Ls being proposed Staff was
informed of the revisions two days prior to the Planning Commission meeting date. The
additional building area will be used to expand office space. The expansion illustrated but not
proposed in the original plan. Since the change was minor and staff wished to expedite the
review, we kept the site plan on the agenda with amended conditions.
A second change in the site plan was the preparation of a traffic study investigating the safety
of allowing full access (left /right in and out) curb cut on Market Boulevard. Staff was initially
hesitant in recommending approval of such access, but the traffic study concluded that it could
be accommodated. Rather than writing an update to the staff report containing all the changes,
staff rewrote the report. The original report submitted to the Planning Commission is attached
(Attachment #1).
This request is for the construction of an 11,468 square foot bank building on the westerly
70,000 square feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza. This parcel is currently owned by
the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The applicant is negotiating with
the HRA to purchase the property. Approval of the purchase was scheduled to take place
on February 20, 1992. As part of the agreement, the city is replatting the subject property
and adjacent property (Lot 2, Block 1) which is also under the ownership of the HRA.
The site plan is well developed. The architecture of the bank building attempts to reflect ,
the nearby Market Square Shopping Center through the use of stucco accent tiles, columns
and accentuated gabled entries, as well as the roof line of the Country Suites Hotel. Staff 1
is proposing that the type of shingle which resemble wood shakes from a distance be used
similar to the Country Suites Hotel. One highly attractive feature of the site is the inclusion
of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. A four
lane drive -thru is provided to the north of the building. The stacking area for the drive -thru
will be on the northeast portion of the site. The location for the drive -thru is appropriate
as it places car stacking away from Market Boulevard and West 79th street. The drive -thru
is screened by the bank building and landscaping from West 79th Street and Market
Boulevard. The site landscaping is generally of high quality. Landscaping materials along
the railroad tracks may be restricted due to sight distance limitations as it may obstruct
visibility of oncoming trains to traffic on Market Boulevard. The Twin Cities and Western
Railroad has been sent a copy of the plans for review and comments and staff has made
several attempts to contact them by telephone. As of today, no comments have been
received.
Site access is of concern in this proposal. Several years ago, a subdivision and site plan for 1
the Crossroads National Bank was approved for this site with two access points on West
1
1
Americana Community Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 3
79th Street. The most easterly access was to be shared by the adjoining property. That plan
also had an access point on Market Boulevard with a right -in /left -in only. All of the above
mentioned access points ( have been installed by the city. The applicant for Americana
1 Community Bank requested two full access points. One via Market Boulevard (right /left
in and out), and the second via West 79th Street. Staff had some concerns regarding the
Market Boulevard island cut and allowing a left turn in and out due to traffic safety
concerns. A traffic study was preformed by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch, the city's traffic
consultant, prior to the February 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. This study
concluded that full access could be accommodated. The second access point is through
West 79th Street. The access via West 79th street will be exclusively used by the applicant
which in turn reduces one access drive.
In an accompanying subdivision request, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza are being
replatted into two lots, one of which will contain the bank building and the second will be
reserved for future development. The subdivision request is a relatively straight forward
r action.
A simple utility and cross access easements vacation are being requested as well. These
i easements were part of a previous plat and are no longer needed.
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the site plan,
subdivision, and vacation requests for this proposal without variances and subject to
appropriate conditions.
' BACKGROUND
On February 12, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for
Crossroads Plaza Addition. The plat consisted of two lots and four outlots. Lot 1 consists
of 2.47 acres and Lot 2 is 3.02 acres. Two of the outlots were utilized for Highway 5 right-
of-way dedication. The other two outlots were used for drainage and retention ponds. Lot
1 was to become the future site for the Crossroads National Bank. On October 23, 1989,
the City Council approved the site plan for the bank. The site plan consisted of a bank and
office building with a total area of 14,000 square feet. Operation of the bank was proposed
to begin out of a modular banking facility while the permanent facility was being built. The
city constructed a parking lot, three access points to the site, and installed light fixtures to
' prepare the site for the Crossroads National Bank's temporary facility. The site plan
proposed an entrance only along Market Boulevard with an exit only at the southwesterly
portion of West 79th Street to accommodate a drive -thru teller. Another full access was
provided at the southeast corner of the site to be shared with the adjacent property to the
east (Lot 2) in the future. The plans never matured beyond the site plan and subdivision
approvals (Attachment #9).
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 4 1
The application in front of the City Council today will change the approved proposal for the
Crossroads National Bank Site Plan. The proposed Americana Community Bank will
111
invalidate the Crossroads National Bank Site Plan. Therefore, considering action of
approval of the Americana Community Bank is contingent upon the withdrawal of
Crossroads National Bank Building site plan approval. 1
On August 7, 1991, the Planning Commission approved an application for Site Plan #91 -3
for the Americana Community Bank Building to be located at the southwest corner of 1
Market Boulevard and West 78th Street (Market Square Development). A planned unit
development amendment and a subdivision proposal were reviewed concurrently. The
proposal was approved by the City Council on August 12, 1991. The applicant elected not 1
to proceed with construction on this site due to delays with Market Square Shopping Center
and a design for increased visibility from Highway 5.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
General Site Plan Architecture
The building is proposed at the northeast corner of West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. 1
Site access is proposed from both West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The parking is
located to the north and east of the proposed building. Vehicle stacking is provided
northeast of the building so that direct distant views from West 79th Street, to the south of
the site, will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will be screened by the
building and landscaping from the west of the site. The architecture of the bank building
reflects the shopping center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns, and gabled entries. Colors
and material types need to be specified for staff approval. Low gabled roofs and a strong
masonry base complete the bank's image for the prominent corner site. The applicant does
not intend to have any rooftop HVAC equipment. All equipment will be placed on the
ground. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a masonry wall using the
same materials as the building and an air conditioning unit located on the northwest corner
of the building. These units are screened by a berm and landscaping to the north, west, and
south.
The architect's intent to combine the style of the shopping center building, along with other
downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one.
Parking /Interior Circulation 1
The City's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor
area. The number of parking spaces required is 46 and the applicant is providing 52 parking
spaces and 1 handicap space which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance. Traffic will
be directed via West 79th Street running parallel to the easterly edge of the site then head
1
1
Americana Community Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 5
r west into the bank site or via Market Boulevard, parallel to the northerly property line.
Traffic exiting the site would utilize the same entrance points located to the northwest and
1 southeast of the site. A stop sign is recommended at both locations to regulate traffic
exiting the site.
The Planning Commission recommended that the parking spaces located to the northeast
of the site be designated as employee parking to minimize traffic conflict of cars
continuously backing up an disturbing the flow of traffic headed to the drive -thru.
Appropriate signage should be required.
In general, the interior circulation and entrances are fairly reasonable in our view. There
is one minor change to the set up of the parking lot. One turnaround area to the east of
the proposed building must be provided to allow vehicles adequate space to back out of the
stalls located at the east side of the building.
,Access
There are three existing driveway access points (curb cuts) to the site. One along Market
Boulevard and two along West 79th Street. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the
most westerly access, and abandoning the existing easterly access on West 79th Street which
111 was to be shared by the adjoining property, and building a new curb cut for the banks
exclusive use. The existing curb cuts will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard.
The new entrance on West 79th Street will serve the parking lot and the drive -thru facilities
as proposed. This entrance will provide a reasonably safe access to this site since it provides
adequate offset separation between this site entrance and Market Boulevard. We believe
the current proposal along West 79th Street is acceptable.
The second access point would expand the existing curb cut on Market Boulevard located
' on the northwest corner of the site. As proposed, this would serve as the entrance /exit to
the drive -thru lanes and the bank building. The plans propose to expand the existing curb
cut and reduce the island on Market Boulevard which was originally constructed for
Crossroads National Bank.
The Market Boulevard access was reviewed by the City's traffic engineering consultant,
Strgar, Roscoe, Fausch (SRF), who also prepared the downtown traffic study. Based on
their calculations, there appears to be sufficient gaps in traffic movements on Market
Boulevard during the peak periods to accommodate left- turning movements into and out of
the site. Their study is based upon full development of the CBD.
Although SRFs calculations are assumed on future land uses, should the land uses intensify,
traffic counts may increase beyond what is being anticipated. This could occur if the CBD
contains several major retailers. Staff believes it would be appropriate to place in the
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank I
February 19, 1992
Page 6 - 1
conditions of approval if two or more traffic accidents occurred over a 12 -month period
involving right -angle collisions on Market Boulevard, the City reserves the right to close off
the median access and restrict the access along Market Boulevard to a right -in /out only.
Staff also believes the Market Boulevard access could be left as is and effectively provide
full access to and from the site. The only modification would be striping of a left turn on
southbound Market.
Signalization of the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, which is 1
currently under consideration by the HRA and City Council, will help traffic flow on Market
Boulevard, although not reduce conflicts at this intersection dramatically.
The bank's request calls for cutting back a median so that southbound traffic exitin g the
bank site could make a left turn onto Market Boulevard. Market Boulevard was widened
south of the railroad tracks to accommodate right and left turn lanes into the site. The
center median length and pavement markings have been reduced to below suggested
standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the site. Further expansion of the curb
cut would require reducing the median further. Both medians and pavement markings have I
a unique function in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the proper lanes in
the roadways. By shortening the median areas further we may be creating confusion or
delay in reaction by the driver for smooth and safe lane transition. Therefore, we are 1
recommending that the curb cut of off Market Boulevard remain as is (26 feet), and not be
widened to a three lane (36 feet). This access point is further complicated with the
relationship of the railroad crossing approximately 80 feet to the north. Although the
crossing is equipped with flashing light signals and automatic gate arms, it still creates an
additional distraction for motorists. Occasional use of the railroad tracks will create
temporary stacking of vehicles back into the site. Layout of the parking lot gives motorists
an option to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th Street rather than waiting to turn
onto Market Boulevard. Staff is recommending that the bank provide the city with financial ,
security in the form of a Letter of Credit to guarantee installation of the required
improvements on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street. The applicant shall also be
liable for all costs associated with the traffic study and construction of the curb cut.
1
Landscaping
The landscaping plan is well developed. Trees and hedges are proposed along the north, I
south, and east portions of the site. Staff is recommending that the applicant comply with
any railroad guidelines for maintaining sight lines at the railroad crossing which may limit 1
landscaping along the northerly portion of the west half of the site (See attachment #4).
1
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 7
1
Lighting
1 Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles are proposed. Only shielded
fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5'
1 candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval.
Signage
1 The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed
at the westerly edge of the site. The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The
ordinance permits up to 80 square feet. The applicant is also showing two 3 -foot high wall
mounted signs on each building elevation with a street frontage. We find the sign package
to be reasonable and consistent with the ordinance. Sign permits are required prior to sign
1 installation.
Grading/Drainage
Specific grading. and drainage plans were not prepared for this submittal. Given current
conditions on the site and the proposed site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal.
1 The site plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with half the site draining to Market
Boulevard and the remaining half to West 79th Street. Storm sewers should be extended
from Market Boulevard and /or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from the site
1 prior to discharging into the City street. Final grading and drainage plans should be
prepared for approval by the city, in addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10
year storm events. All plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to
the City's Engineering office for review and approval.
The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this time. Erosion control
measures (Type I - silt fence) should be incorporated on the plans along with 79th Street
and Market Boulevard. Temporary gravel construction entrances should be employed until
the permanent access points have been constructed.
Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan, staff will be able to recommend
appropriate erosion control measures.
1 Watershed District approval of this plan is required. The applicant shall receive a
Watershed District permit and comply with their conditions.
1 Utilities
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site from West 79th Street.
A previous site plan proposal for this lot extended the water and sewer service into the lot
1
1
1 •
Americana Community Bank 1
February 19, 1992
Page 8 1
to accommodate a temporary building facility; however, the temporary building facility was
never constructed. Therefore, the utility services will have to be disconnected by the
applicant at the property line and redirected to the proposed facility. Final plans for utility
connection should be prepared for approval by staff.
The Fire Marshal is requesting that utilities coming into the building as well as other fire I
hydrants in the vicinity be shown on the site plan.
Park and Trail Dedication I
The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city accept full park and 1
trail dedication fees as part of this development. Fees are paid at the time the building
permits are requested. The applicant shall also construct a concrete sidewalk, 6 feet wide,
to be located south of the site and connecting with the sidewalk located to the west of the
site.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I Americana Community Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 9
1
COMPLIANCE TABLE( WITH HIGHWAY & BUSINESS DISTRICT ORDINANCE
1
Required Proposed
1
Building Front Yard Setback 25' 35'
I Building Side Yard Setback 10' N 100' /E 130'
1 Lot Area 20,000 S.F. 70,000 S.F.
Parking Setback from Railroad 0 12'
1 Hard Surface Coverage 65% 65%
1 Parking Stalls 46 52
SUBDIVISION
The metes and bounds subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to
I realign the easterly property line of Lot 1, 40 feet to the west. Lot 1, Block 1, is proposed
to have an area of 70,000 square feet and will be occupied by the bank building. Lot 2,
Block 1, is vacant and there is no development proposed on the site at this time. This is a
I meets and bounds subdivision, therefore no action was required by the Planning
Commission. The following easements are illustrated on the plat:
I 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both lots (5 feet to
the side, 10 feet to the front).
I 2. A utility and drainage easement over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2, Block 1,
Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition.
II 3. The final plat must be submitted to staff for approval and recording with Carver
County.
I VACATION OF A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE
UNDERLYING PLAT
1 The Planning Commission did not need to take action on this item as vacation require City
Council approval only. As part of the plat and site plan approval for Crossroads National
1
1
1
Americana Communi ty Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 10 1
Bank, a cross access easement was required to allow the occupants of both Lots 1 and 2, to
share a driveway. With the new proposed site plan for Americana Community Bank, this 1
cross access easement will no longer be needed and will need to be vacated. Also, due to
shifting the westerly property line of Lot 2, the drainage and utility easement along the
previous lot line will need to be vacated. Staff is recommending approval of the cross access 111
easement and utility and drainage easement vacation.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE: 1
A number of revisions took place between the time period when staff submitted their staff
report and the day the Planning Commission met. These revisions include:
1. The applicants had originally planned on building the bank in two phases. Two days
prior to the Planning Commission meeting date, the applicant decided to construct
phase II of the plan now rather than wait for a future date. The proposed revisions
to the site plan met all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Those
requirements included setbacks, hard surface coverage, and parking. The roof line
on the building, including the addition was revised. Additional gables
had been introduced and the overall concept was well developed. 1
2. The Market Boulevard access was reviewed by the traffic engineering firm of Strgar,
Roscoe, Fausch, who prepared the Downtown Traffic Study. It was concluded that 1
left turning movements into and out of the site on Market Boulevard can be
accommodated.
At full development, they found that during the peak P.M. hours, there is capaci ty 11
for 68 left turns exiting the site onto Market Boulevard. They calculated that there
would be 50 movements out of the site during the same time period. Additionally, 1
the site allows for exiting out onto West 79th Street if the wait to exit onto Market
Boulevard becomes too long.
Engineering staff still had safety concerns regarding left turns '
ty g g into and out of the site on
Market Boulevard. They recommended that if there is more than two traffic accidents
involving right angle collisions on Market Boulevard, the access will be limited to right I
in /out only.
The Planning Commission was satisfied with the changes, and recommended approval of the 1
application. They commented that the design had been refined further from what was
proposed on the corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard (the Market Square site).
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 11
1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I Site Plan Review
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
'The City Council approves Site Plan Review #92 -1 as shown on the site plan dated
1 February 27, 1992, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Stop
signs shall be installed at both exit points located on Market Boulevard and West
79th Street.
2. Landscaping along the north edge of the site must be modified to meet all
requirements of the railroad. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost
estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees.
These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant
schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval.
1 3. The applicant shall provide the city with the necessary financial securities to
guarantee installation of the required public improvements and costs associated with
1 the traffic study.
4. Revise architectural plans as follows:
• Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an
image of a cedar shake roof.
• Provide details of building exterior treatment for staff approval.
1 5. A grading and drainage plan, including storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm
event prepared by a professional engineer, be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval.
6. The applicant shall indicate on pp o the site plan utilities coming into the building and
addition and fire hydrants in the vicinity.
7. The applicant shall include sal clude construction of the driveway aprons, any median
improvements, sidewalk and boulevard restoration in the site improvements. All
boulevard restoration, sidewalk, driveways, and median improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
1
February 19, 1992
Page 12
and Detail Plates 1992. Detailed plans and specifications shall be prepared b
Plates ( 1992). P P P P by a
professional engineer and submitted for approval by the City Engineer.
8. The applicant shall be responsible for all damage to the City's existing p g ty ' g public
improvements (i.e. streets, sidewalk, utilities).
9. The applicant shall provide a turnaround area at the east side of the proposed
building. 1
10. The northerly 16 parking stalls shall be labeled "Employee and Tenant Parking Only ".
11. The width of the easterly curb cut of off Market Boulevard shall not exceed 26 feet. 1
12. Plans for the plaza shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 1
13. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 79th Street and Market
Boulevard. 1
14. The City reserves the right to limit access to right -in /out only should two or more
traffic accidents involving right -angle collisions on Market Boulevard occur within a
12 -month period.
15. The applicant shall utilize the existing Market Boulevard access and provide a
striping and signing plan for a left turn lane on southbound Market Boulevard.
Subdivision 1
Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the following motion:
'The City Council approves the subdivision proposal with the following conditions:
tY PP P P g
1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 1
2. Provide the following easements:
a. standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots.
b. The final plat for Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition must be submitted to staff 1
for approval and filed with Carver County.
1
1
1
I
I Americana Community Bank
February 19, 1992
Page 13
1
Withdrawal of originally approved site plan
"The City Council withdraws approval of Site Plan 89 -6 for the Crossroads National Bank
building, concurrently with the approval of Site Plan #92 -1 for Americana Bank. The
1 applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County."
Vacation
I Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
tY P g
1 "The City Council approves the vacation of the following easements:
1. The easterly 5 feet of Lot 1, and the westerly 5 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads
1 Plaza Addition.
I 2. The cross access easement located along the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2, Block
1, Crossroads Plaza Addition."
I ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report and Planning Commission minutes dated February 19, 1992.
I 2. Memo dated February 19, 1992.
3. Memo from Engineering Department dated February 19, 1992.
4. Attachment showing railroad track sight restrictions.
I 5. Memo from Fire Marshall dated February 12, 1992.
6. Memo from Building Official dated February 6, 1992.
7. Memo from Senior Engineering Technician dated February 12, 1992.
I 8. Staff report dated August 12, 1991, Americana Community Bank.
9. Staff report dated October 23, 1989, Crossroads National Bank.
10. Plans dated February 27, 1992.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1 T 0 F P.. DATE: 2/19/92
CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 3/9/92
CASE #: 92 -1 SITE
89 -19 SUB
B : A1- Jaff•v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 7,268 Square Foot Bank and
Office Building Americana Community Bank
2) Replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza,
into two parcels with areas of 70,000 Square Feet
and 164,762 Square Feet
Z 3) Vacation of a cross access easement and an
Q underlying utility and drainage easement located on
Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition.
n LOCATION: North of Highway. 5, east of Market Boulevard, south of
0 Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad
Q APPLICANT: KRJ Associates City of Chanhassen
P 0 Box 635 690 Coulter Drive
Long Lake, MN 55356 Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District
ACREAGE: 234,762 Sq Ft (Plat) 70,000 Sq Ft (Site Plan)
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - BG and CBD, Filly's and Country Suites
S - BH, Vacant
E - BH, Vacant
Q W - BG, Vacant (Future Market Square) and
Fountain
Q ' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has been extensively altered due to
the construction of Market Boulevard and West
79th Street. The site is flat and devoid of
tree cover.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
1
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
This request is for the construction of a 7,268 square foot bank
building on the westerly 70,000 square feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
Crossroads Plaza. This parcel is currently owned by the Chanhassen
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The applicant is negotiating
with the HRA to purchase the property. Approval of the purchase is
scheduled to take place on February 20, 1992. As part of the
agreement, the city is replatting the subject property and adjacent
1 property (Lot 2, Block 1) which is also under the ownership of the
HRA.
11 The site plan is fairly well developed. The architecture of the
bank building attempts to reflect the nearby Market Square Shopping
Center through the use of stucco accent tiles, columns and
accentuated gabled entries, as well as the roof line of the Country
i Suites Hotel. Staff is proposing that the type of shingle which
■ resemble wood shakes from a distance be used similar to the Country
Suites Hotel. One highly attractive feature of the site is the
inclusion of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 79th
Street and Market Boulevard. A four lane drive -thru is provided to
the north of the building. The stacking area for the drive -thru
11 will be on the northeast portion of the site. The location for the
drive -thru is appropriate as it places car stacking away from
Market Boulevard and West 79th street. The drive -thru is screened
by the bank building and landscaping from West 79th Street and
Market Boulevard. The site landscaping is generally of high
quality. Landscaping materials along the railroad tracks may be
restricted due to sight distance limitations as it may obstruct
visibility of oncoming trains to traffic on Market Boulevard. The
Twin Cities and Western Railroad has been sent a copy of the plans
for review and comments. As of today, no comments have been
received.
Site access is of concern in this proposal. A previous subdivision
and site plan for the Crossroads National Bank was approved with
two access points via West 79th, the most easterly access was to be
shared by the adjoining property. The site also had an access
point on Market Boulevard with a right -in /left -in only. All of the
above mentioned access points have been installed by the city. The
applicant for Americana Community Bank requested two full access
points. One via Market Boulevard (right /left in and out), which
will require cutting back the existing island on Market Boulevard
I/ and widening the existing driveway apron. Staff has some concerns
regarding the Market Boulevard island cut and allowing a left turn
in and out due to traffic safety concerns. Staff recommends that
a traffic study be preformed prior to the city granting full access
drive. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation study
there is a potential for 7,400 trips per day on Market Boulevard by
the year 2010. The second access point is through West 79th
Americana Community Bank 1
August 7, 1991
Page 3
Street. The access via West 79th street will be exclusively used
by the applicant which in turn reduces one access drive.
The bank representatives believe that the southbound left turn from
the site on to Market Boulevard is critical to their operation.
From a design standpoint, we believe this change is not likely to
undermine the effectiveness of traffic flow on Market Boulevard.
However, it is necessary to note that the City Engineering
Department continues to have safety concerns with the left turn
from the site to southbound Market Boulevard. If the applicant
still desires to have a full access approved, they should pay for
all associated costs related to preparation of a traffic study.
The results of that study shall determine the feasibility of
granting a full access.
In an accompanying subdivision request, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,
Crossroads Plaza are being replatted into two lots, one of which
will contain the bank building and the second will be reserved for
future development. The subdivision request is a relatively
straight forward action. 1
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that. the Planning
Commission approve the site plan, and subdivision requests for this
proposal without variances and subject to appropriate conditions.
BACKGROUND
On February 12, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary and
final plat for Crossroads Plaza Addition. The plat consisted of
two lots and four outlots. Lot 1, 2.47 Acres, and Lot 2, 3.02
Acres. Two of the outlots were utilized for Highway 5 right -of -way
dedication. The other two outlots were used for drainage and
retention ponds. Lot 1 was to become the future site for the
Crossroads National Bank. On October 23, 1989, the City Council
approved the site plan for the bank. The site plan consisted of a
bank and office building with a total area of 14,000 square feet.
Operation of the bank was proposed to begin out of a modular
banking facility while the permanent facility was being built. The
city constructed a parking lot, three access points to the site,
and installed light fixtures to prepare the site for the Crossroads
National Bank's temporary facility. The site plan proposed an
entrance only along Market Boulevard with an exit only at the
southwesterly portion of West 79th Street to accommodate a drive -
thru teller. Another full access was provided at the southeast
corner of the site to be shared with the adjacent property to the
east (Lot 2) in the future. The plans never matured beyond the
site plan and subdivision approvals (Attachment #2).
The application in front of the Planning Commission today will
change the approved proposal for the Crossroads National Bank Site 1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
I Page 4
Plan. The proposed Americana Community Bank will invalidate the
Crossroads National Bank Site Plan. Therefore, considering action
of approval of the Americana Community Bank is contingent upon the
withdrawal of Crossroads National Bank Building Site Plan approval.
On August 7, 1991, the Planning Commission approved an application
for Site Plan #91 -3 for the Americana Community Bank Building to be
located at the southwest corner of Market Boulevard and West 78th
Street (Market Square Development). A Planned Unit Development
Amendment and a subdivision proposal were reviewed concurrently.
The proposal was approved by the City Council on August 12, 1991.
The applicant elected not to proceed with construction on this site
due to delays with Market Square Shopping Center and a design for
increased visibility from Highway 5.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
General Site Plan /Architecture
The building is proposed at the northeast corner of West 79th
Street and Market Boulevard. Site access is proposed from both
West 79th Street and Market Boulevard. The majority of the parking
is located to the east of the proposed building. Future parking is
proposed to be added to the north of the site with phase II.
Vehicle stacking is provided northeast of the building so that
direct distant views from West 79th Street, to the south of the
site, will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will
be screened by the building and landscaping from the west of the
site. The architecture of the bank building reflects the shopping
center's use of stucco accent tiles, columns and gabled entries.
Colors and material types need to be specified for staff approval.
Low gabled roofs and a strong masonry base complete the bank's
image for the prominent corner site. The applicant does not intend
to have any roof top equipment. All equipment will be placed on
the ground. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened
by a masonry wall using the same materials as the building and an
air conditioning unit located on the northwest corner of the
building. These units are screened by a berm and landscaping to
the north, west and south.
The applicant has illustrated a building addition on the south side
of the building, paralleling West 79th Street, which represents
potential future expansion of the bank facility. This addition
will overlook the plaza area. Upon review of the plans, staff
concluded that additional parking will be needed to support a
building addition on this site. The applicant has illustrated 16
additional future spaces. This building addition is supported by
staff but the applicant will have to reappear in front of the
11
Americana Community Bank 1
August 7, 1991
Page 5
Planning Commission and City Council for a Site Plan amendment at 1
the time when the addition is to be built. Staff is recommending
that the applicants illustrate how the roof line will be extended at
the time the addition is built.
The architect's intent to combine the style of the shopping center
building, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country 1
Hospitality Suites, is a sound one.
parking /Interior Circulation 1
The City's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 250
square feet of gross floor area. The number of parking spaces
required is 30 and the applicant is providing 36 parking spaces and 1
1 handicap space which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance.
Traffic will be directed via West 79th Street running parallel to
the easterly edge of the site then head west into the bank site or
via Market Boulevard, parallel to the northerly property line.
Traffic exiting the site would utilize the same entrance points
located to the northwest and southeast of the site. A stop sign is
recommended at both locations to regulate traffic exiting the site.
In general, the interior circulation and entrances are fairly
reasonable in our view.
Access
There are three existing driveway access points (curb cuts) to the 1
site. One along Market Boulevard and two along West 79th Street.
The applicant is proposing to eliminate the most westerly access,
and abandoning the existing easterly access on West 79th Street
which was to be shared by the adjoining property, and building a
new curb cut for the banks exclusive use. The existing curb cuts
will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard. The new
entrance on West 79th Street will serve the parking lot and the
drive -thru facilities as proposed. This entrance will provide a
reasonably safe access to this site since it provides adequate
offset separation between this site entrance and Market Boulevard.
We believe the current proposal along West 79th Street is
acceptable.
The second access point would expand the existin g curb cut on
Market Boulevard located on the northwest corner of the site. As
proposed, this would serve as the entrance /exit to the drive -thru 1
lanes and the bank building. The plans propose to expand the
existing curb cut and reducing the island on Market Boulevard which
was originally constructed for Crossroads National Bank. 1
The applicant's position is that they want full access to the bank
from both West 79th Street and from Market Boulevard. Staff
11
II Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
I Page 6
recommends that the applicant provide the City with a cash escrow
11 to have a traffic engineering consultant, prepare a traffic
analysis of the turning movements onto Market Boulevard with
recommendations for improvements, i.e. turn lanes, medians,
driveway location, etc.
1 Staff believes there ultimately will be too many traffic movements
• occurring on Market Boulevard to safely exit this site onto
I southbound Market Boulevard. Signalization of the intersection of
West 78th Street and Market Boulevard, which is currently under
consideration by the HRA and City Council, will help traffic flow
II on Market Boulevard, although not reduce conflicts at this
intersection dramatically.
A right -in /right -out only entrance via Market Boulevard has always
II been the plan for this access. The bank's request calls for
cutting back a median so that southbound traffic exiting the bank
site could make a left turn onto Market Boulevard. Market
II Boulevard was widened south of the railroad tracks to accommodate
right and left turn lanes into the site. The center median length
and pavement markings have been reduced to below suggested
standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the site. Further
I expansion of the curb cut would require reducing the median
further. Both medians and pavement markings have a unique function
in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the proper
II lanes in the roadways. By shortening the median areas further we
may be creating confusion or delay in reaction by the driver for
smooth and safe lane transition. This access point is further
11 complicated with the relationship of the railroad crossing
approximately 80 feet to the north. Although the crossing is
equipped with flashing light signals and automatic gate arms, it
still creates an additional distraction for motorists. Occasional
11 use of the railroad tracks will create temporary stacking of
vehicles back into the site. Layout of the parking lot gives
motorists an option to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th
II Street rather than waiting to turn onto Market Boulevard.
Representatives from the bank believe that the Market Boulevard
access point is vital to their operation. Final designs for this
I/ curb cut have not been developed.
Staff recommends that the access oint along Market p g k Boulevard be
restricted to a right in /out and left turn in from Market
I/ Boulevard. If the applicant wishes to maintain the current
proposed plan of full access by expanding the access point with a
left turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a
II traffic study should be prepared. Staff is also recommending that
the bank provide the city with financial security in the form of a
Letter of Credit to guarantee installation of the required
II improvements on Market Boulevard and. West 79th Street. The
applicant shall also be liable for all costs associated with the
II
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 7
traffic study and construction of the curb cut.* The traffic study 1
would specifically address vehicle stacking needs, turning
movements and related safety concerns at both the driveway
intersection and railroad track intersection. 1
Landscaping
The landscaping plan is acceptable. Trees and hedges are proposed t
along the north, south, and east portions of the site. Staff is
recommending that the applicant comply with any railroad guidelines
for maintaining sight lines at the railroad crossing which may
limit landscaping along the northerly portion of the west half of
the site (See attachment #1).
Although the landscaping plan appears to be generally reasonable, 1
we do have several revisions to request. The first is that the
plan does not specify type or size of all materials. Final plans
should be developed that incorporate this and the size of all
materials must meet or exceed normal city standards. Secondly, the
applicant has failed to show any grades on the site. We are
requesting that grading details of the site be provided for staff 1
review.
Lighting 1
Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles
are proposed. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant
shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5' candles of light
at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for
approval.
Signage 1
The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument
identification sign is proposed at the westerly edge of the site.
The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The ordinance
permits up to 80 square feet. The applicant is also showing two a-
foot high wall mounted signs on each building elevation with a
street frontage. We find the sign package to be reasonable and
consistent with the ordinance. Sign permits are required prior to
sign installation. 1
Grading /Drainage
Specific grading and drainage plans were not prepared for this 1
submittal. Given current conditions on the site and the proposed
site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal. The site
plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with half the site
draining to Market Boulevard and the remaining half to West 79th
Street. Storm sewers should be extended from Market Boulevard
1
11
4
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 8
and /or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from the site
prior to discharging into the City street. Final grading and
drainage plans should be prepared for approval by the city, in
addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10 year storm
events. All plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer and
submitted to the City's Engineering office for review and approval.
11 The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this
time. Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan,
staff will be able to recommend appropriate erosion control
measures.
Watershed District approval of this plan is required. The
applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and comply with
their conditions.
Utilities
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site
from West 79th Street. A previous site plan proposal for this lot
extended the water and sewer service into the lot to accommodate a
temporary building facility; however, the temporary building
facility was never constructed. Therefore, the utility services
will have to be disconnected by the applicant at the property line
and redirected to the proposed facility. Final plans for utility
connection should be prepared for approval by staff.
The Fire Marshal is requesting that utilities coming into the
building as well as other fire hydrants in the vicinity be shown on
the site plan.
' Park and Trail Dedication
The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city
accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this
development. Fees are paid at the time the building permits are
requested.
' The applicant shall also construct a concrete sidewalk, 6 feet
wide, to be located south of the site and connecting with the
sidewalk located to the west of the site.
1
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 9
•
COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH HIGHWAY &•BUSINESS DISTRICT ORDINANCE
1
Required Proposed
Building Front Yard Setback 25' 50' •
Building Side Yard Setback 10' N 80' /E 130' 1
Lot Area 20,000 S.F. 70,000 S.F.
Parking Setback from Railroad 0 12' 1
Hard Surface Coverage 65% 62%
Parking Stalls 30 36 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion: i
Site Plan Review
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review
#92 -1 as shown on the site plan dated 1992, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any i
signage on site. Stop signs shall be installed at both exit
points located on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street.
2. Landscaping along the north edge of the site must be modified
to meet all requirements of the railroad. The applicant shall
provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to
be used in calculating the required financial guarantees.
These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit
issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and
type of all plant materials for staff approval.
3. The applicant shall provide the city with the necessary
financial securities to guarantee installation of the required
public improvements and costs associated with the traffic
study.
11
1
11
I Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 10
4. Revise architectural plans as follows:
• Provide a concept of what the roof line would look like
when phase II is added.
• Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality
shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof.
• Provide details of building exterior treatment."
5. A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations
for a 10 year storm event prepared by a professional engineer
11 and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
6. The applicant shall indicate on the site plan utilities coming
into the building and addition fire hydrants in the vicinity.
7. The applicant shall include construction of the driveway
aprons, median improvements, sidewalk and boulevard
11 restoration in the site plan improvements.
8. The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to the
City's existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard.
SUBDIVISION
11 The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will
serve to realign the easterly property line of Lot 1, 40 feet to
the west. Lot 1, Block 1, is proposed to have an area of 70,000
square feet and will be occupied by the bank building. Lot 2,
Block 1, is vacant and there is no development proposed on the site
at this time. This is a meets and bounds subdivision, therefore no
action is required by the Planning Commission.
The following easements are illustrated on the plat:
1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter
of both lots (5 feet to the side, 10 feet to the front)
2. A utility and drainage easement over the northerly 20 feet of
Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition.
3. The final plat must be submitted to staff for approval and
recording with Carver County.
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991 I/
Page 11
Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision proposal with the 11
following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of 11
building permits are requested.
2. Provide the following easements: 1
a. standard drainage and utility easements around the
perimeter of all lots. 1
b. The final plat for Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition must be
submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver
County.
WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN
"The Planning Commission recommends the withdraw of approval of
Site Plan 89 -6 for the Crossroads National Bank building,
concurrently with the approval of site plan #92 -1. The applicant
should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver
County."
VACATION OF A. CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE
UNDERLYING PLAT
The Planning Commission does not need to take action on this item �.
but we are including it as an informational item. As part of the
plat and site plan approval for Crossroads National Bank, a cross
access easement was required to allow the occupants of both Lots 1
and 2, to share a driveway. With the new proposed site plan for I/
Americana Community Bank, this cross access easement will no longer
be needed and will need to be vacated. Also, due to shifting the
westerly property line of Lot 2, the drainage and utility easement
along the previous lot line will need to be vacated. Staff is
recommending approval of the cross access easement and utility and
drainage easement vacation. 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Attachment showing railroad track sight restrictions. 1
2. Memo from Fire Marshall dated February 12, 1992.
3. Memo from Building Official dated February 6, 1992.
4. Memo from Senior Engineering Technician dated February 12,
1992.
5. Staff report dated August 12, 1991, Americana Community Bank.
6. Staff report dated October 23, 1989, Crossroads National Bank.
7. Plans dated January 31, 1992.
11/
1
i ______
Z ,_2;.,
; „...______., c i
.t.
.1„/
_ Ntt
0 0 �` - 1 1 Q
(0
i v , i
4111, ) .. R; r-
I . \\ y , \ „ ---::::_,...- \, IL- mss+ V.. i ha • z \ , _
t cc .o I -4 1- r ‘ li ft li ii r - ll'A l .. - _,, 0 42 . :;:,:.=,•;.;:;":.A 1 . 9 \ \ CiA
1 ,
.1.5.- :'::.- ,,\ t % / 1. , '°` .. . .,..„................,...,... t t . .•
i . S . t• .% . ...'-•''':-..-- ii;j"A:;%.• ....-;- ... t ".. ..
...t . U•1717 ' . - . ■1‘ ,I. /1.:71.:?:.;■-.....',..1:::-..2:trtl?_;17, I s - V! , :•.: .: i .,.. N \ 1 ' , \ - \
iiiiik ' ' s, ' ''. ' ?r . ; :'& •1 1 V 1 ' ':-...ii:IiV...;-, z .:. & ‘•,\
"\ : f ;et!' 1 \ ) \ % .,..t
..1. -'4.. - • . li \l' \ \ / 1 i y '::4• 1 v + - �
■■i '• `. Itto• • : j am • ., 1 • 44 i i
,'.lam:' p r -.. \ \ a) 4 0 1 V III 4001111V.V...00 .
L I :1 , i / / a rjrl� " :....1� ti,......„.-
11 1 \\ A • :,
'' /0 -til.'A.se
(....,,,.....,.. ;, , ,, v
' ' I' • 1 il , 1 ! cil) )2 I\
: \ ill
• ..- : \ ' '
1 V t li c; '',:1 =.• -, = . \ p ;ill ,� _ . v eir: ' . /
..,.
,,, . .....,,,,,,,
...,._...
, ct ,
/,..,, i.,/ .
lk v,,,, / ,;.;:///,'/// ,
r, /
,, ,il Alt4 / Z I ,n I p � � , / S // /
Q . a — / i / / S • • • //
/ //i Zs)/
- ' / . / / ' / / 4' / _s .. r- i
\ N / .....• tr) •9 i /
A
i A . A f rOtrASP r . - _ _ _ _ _ _ , j , i
•:.;,. .1 er 141,, L. : ///// / i‘h .•
A Ot t it 1 // / '
•
I ' tir'V#.44 Irfr,Z______/ A , 1 / .
..,----1111 0 o 4 , 4 01 i iirli) , . A:ei / / " .. ; ) \ix., / / % •
t 1\
1 ; ' 4)" i tdo.f#X "
i i C , 1 ,: , . 1 i i,
\ i ‘...c,,/ 7 J ` 1 �` \ j/ taINI
•
111- -;:::::,- — '--. . ' . a : . .--. t 1 , 1 1 z •
of • + CO ai \ \
0..
_.
l= " �� K A `1 1 z
• \ " � * 1 1 '
I . •
� 1 ? \
CITY 0 F
0
' lq.. CHANHASSEN
l
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937-1900' FAX (612) 937-5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I 1
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
1
DATE: February 12, 1992
SUBJ: #8 9-1 9 SUB and #92-1 Site Plan
1
Please indicate the following on site plan:
I
1. Other additional fire hyBrants in vicinity.
2. Utilities coming into bililding, i.e, water, gas, II
electricity
-- -
. -. .
II
.1-
II
1
4 .
■ . ,
'''''-''- ' . . ° :-1 T. • ..1,..
1
,,_ ;•■ ". .....N.Y .''.' xe Ak .'^,. , A. . 4 '. t ar: s :^;:;' , ''
1
.. ,,... „.. ,,
r i''' ter I
.0 .
4.)
I
1
e. 1
tls 41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
CITYOF
:._":
i k ;,
- 7: S: -.. 1 " . ..,,t Li 'r 0
'F 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
I
ILMEMO
ii DATE (mm/dd /yy): 02/06/92
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff TITLE /TO: Planner I
I THROUGH: TITLE /THROUGH:
FROM: Steve A. Kirchmant k.. TITLE /FROM: Building Official
'SUBJECT: Planning Case: 89 -19 SUB & 92 -1 Site Plan
- _: Site play, review nets been completed for the Americana Community Bank. I
1 have the following comments. : --
1. Construction of the "16 future stall.&" will trigger the requirement for an
I additional handicap parking space. T1 applicant may wish to design the
parking spaces near the building entrance to accomadate the future handicap
stall.
II 2. The Americans with Disabilities` Act became effective on 1/26/92. The
de_igners are responsible for compliance to the ADA.
I 3. L -2 office occupancies of 840 or more gross feet of floor area are
required to be fire sprinklered Gross feet 6f floor area includes the
basement.
1
.. ' -. S Fs.E ,t-.,:!, -,..4.-, 4.:'k 's $3 "5 _ _ .
1 °' a
'gr -
' K
•
1
1
1 ..
titp PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
i
C HANIIASSEN 1
,..„.. ,.,,,,,...„
• 1 Ifille '' -
\ 45,
CITYOF
.�t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I '
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician \i
II
DATE: February 12, 1992
SUBJ: Site Plan Review - Americana Bank, Northwest Corner of
II
West 79th Street and Market Boulevard
Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza
LUR 91 -11
I
Utilities
II
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site
from West 79th Street. A previous site plan proposal for this lot
extended the water and sewer service into the lot to accommodate a
II
temporary building facility; however, the temporary building
facility was never constructed. Therefore, the utility services
will have to be disconnected by the applicant at the property line II and redirected to the proposed facility.
Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control II
No actual grading and drainage plan was submitted with this
proposal. The site plan proposes parking lot drainage divided with
II
half the site draining to Market Boulevard and the remaining half
to West 79th Street. Storm sewers should be extended from Market
Boulevard and /or West 79th Street to convey runoff generated from I
the site prior to discharging into the City street. A grading and
drainage plan including storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year
storm event should be prepared by a professional engineer and
submitted to the City's Engineering office for review and approval.
II
The site plan does not propose any erosion control measures at this
time. Upon receipt of an acceptable grading and drainage plan,
II
staff will be able to recommend appropriate erosion control
measures.
II
II
11
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 12, 1992
Page 2
' Site Access
Three driveway access points (curb cuts) along Market Boulevard and
West 79th Street have been designed and constructed in accordance
with a previous bank facility in mind (Crossroads National Bank).
That site plan proposed an entrance only along Market Boulevard
' with an exit only at the southwesterly portion of West 79th Street
to accommodate a drive - through teller. Another full access was
provided at the southeast corner of the site to be shared with the
adjacent property to the east (Lot 2) in the future.
The new plans propose to expand the existing curb cut on Market
Boulevard and replace the two curb cuts along West 79th Street with
' one new one. Staff is comfortable with the full access being
proposed along West 79th Street but has safety concerns with the
expansion and proposed usage of the Market Boulevard curb cut.
Market Boulevard was widened south of the railroad tracks to
accommodate right and left turn lanes into the site. The center
median length and pavement markings have been reduced below
suggested standards to accommodate the left turn lane into the
site. Further expansion of the curb cut will require reducing the
median further. Both medians and pavement markings have a unique
function in the proper control and regulation of traffic into the
proper lanes in the roadways. By shortening the median areas
further we may be creating confusion or delay in reaction by the
driver for smooth and safe lane transition.
' According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Market
Boulevard is classified as a Class I Collector. Market Boulevard
is predicted by the year 2010 to accommodate 7,400 ADT. It is the
City's intent to limit the amount of curb cuts /turning movements on
Market Boulevard due to the anticipated high volume of traffic.
1 Staff feels the expansion of the access point on Market Boulevard
to be unduly hazardous and not totally necessary for this site to
effectively function. This access point is further complicated
with the relationship of the railroad crossing approximately 80
feet to the north. Although the crossing is equipped-with flashing
light signals and automatic gate arms, it still creates an
additional distraction for motorists. Occasional use of the
' railroad tracks will create temporary stacking of vehicles back
into the site. Layout of the parking lot gives motorists an option
to loop back to the east to exit via West 79th Street rather than
waiting to turn onto Market Boulevard.
Staff recommends that the access point along Market Boulevard be
restricted to a right in /out and left turn in from Market
' Boulevard. If the applicant wishes to maintain the current
proposed plan of full access by expanding the access point with a
1
11
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 12, 1992
Page 3
left turn lane from the site onto southbound Market Boulevard, a
traffic study should be prepared. The applicant should provide the
City with a cash escrow to have a traffic study prepared. The
traffic study would specifically address vehicle stacking needs,
turning movements and related safety concerns at both the driveway
intersection and railroad track intersection.
Site access from West 79th Street appears acceptable. The existing
curb cuts will have to be eliminated and restored as boulevard.
The applicant should include the boulevard restoration, sidewalk, 1
driveway and median construction and access removal into their site
plan improvements. Final detailed plans and specifications shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. All boulevard
restoration, sidewalks and driveway aprons (public improvements)
shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the
City's Standard Specifications. The project specification
documents should incorporate the City's standard specifications.
All work performed within the City's right -of -way shall be
inspected and approved by the City's Engineering Department prior
to releasing any financial security or issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
Recommended Conditions of Approval '
1. A grading and drainage plan including storm sewer calculations
for a 10 -year storm event prepared by a professional engineer
and Submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
2. The applicant shall include construction of the driveway
aprons, median improvements, sidewalk and boulevard
restoration in the site plan improvements.
3. The applicant shall provide the City with a financial security '
(letter of credit or cash escrow) to guarantee construction of
the driveway aprons, center median improvements and boulevard
restoration and all other proposed public improvements. The
applicant shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from
a bank, cash escrow or equivalent for $10,000. The security
shall be for a term ending December 31, 1992. Once the
required improvements have been inspected and approved by the
City and a two -year maintenance bond received for the public
improvements, the letter of credit shall be released.
4. The applicant shall work with staff to develop an erosion
control plan.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for any damage to the
City's existing sidewalk along Market Boulevard.
1
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 12, 1992
Page 4
' 6. The applicant shall receive a Watershed District permit and
comply with conditions stipulated.
7. If the applicant wishes to expand the existing curb cut along
Market Boulevard with a left -turn lane from the site onto
southbound Market Boulevard, a traffic study shall be prepared
to determine if warranted. The City shall retain a consultant
' and all costs associated with the study shall be borne by the
applicant.
' jms /ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
--; ITY O r- F r-
A
.jATE: 8/7/91 f
\I S H A N II A S S E N CC DATE: 8/12/91
CASE #: 91 -3 SITE
89 -2 PUD, 91 -8 SUB
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for an 8,365 Square Foot Bank
Building,
I- 2) Replat a Portion of Outlot A, Market Square
into a 40,000 Square Foot Lot and a 39,600 Square.
Q Foot Lot
3) PUD Amendment to Add a Bank Building to Market
Square Shopping Center
LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Market Boulevard
and West 78th Street
•
Q APPLICANT: FRJ Associates
P 0 Box 635
Long Lake, MN 55356
•
PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development
ACREAGE: 40,000 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - OI and CBD
• S - BG, vacant
Q W - CBD, Filly's and Hotel
(, WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. .t.: _
k.
W c: f - z ...
12 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: A level parcel. Let!
ammo
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial - ' - ^f•
•
1
II
II Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 2
II PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
On October 8, 1990, the City Council approved the final PUD plan
1 for a shopping center subject to conditions described in the
attached report. The site included 3 outlots containing a proposed •
veterinary clinic and a cleaners and one vacant outlot (Outlot A)
I with an area of 79,946 square feet. The shopping center remains
undeveloped due to financing difficulties, however, these are in
the process of being resolved and construction is likely to start
in September. The current request is for the construction of a
II 8,365 square foot bank building on'the north half of Outlot A.
The site plan is well developed. The architecture of the bank
I building attempts to reflect the shopping center's use of stucco
accent tiles, columns and gabled entries as well as the roof line
of the Country Suites Hotel. This type of architecture is
consistent with the rest of the shopping center. Staff is
II proposing that the roof line of the bank be revised to accentuate
the gables and to ensure that the shingles are of,the type used on
the Country Suites Hotel which resemble wood shakes from a
1 distance. One highly attractive feature of the site is the
inclusion of a pedestrian plaza at the intersection of West 78th
Street and Market Boulevard. A four lane drive -thru is provided to
1 the south of the building. Car stacking for vehicles waiting to go
through the drive -thru will be on the south portion of the site
away from West 78th Street. The location for the drive -thru is
appropriate as it places car stacking away from West 78th Street.
I The drive -thru is screened by the bank building from West 78th
Street. Upon review of the drive -thru by the Engineering
Department; it was found that the proposed turn radius for the
11 drive -thru exit was inadequately sized. Alternatives to address
the problem and acquisition of additional land to the south or
reversing the turn lane direction of flow should be submitted. The
II site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention
that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. Additional
landscaping is being requested north and west of the site across
from the parking area.
Site access has been a major concern of staff through the design of
this proposal. The applicant originally requested two access
1 points, one via Market Boulevard and the second through West 78th
Street. Staff strongly opposed the Market Boulevard curb cut
noting traffic safety concerns and the fact that this entrance was
II specifically prohibited by the PUD agreement. After a number of
meetings with the applicant, the Market Boulevard curb cut was
eliminated and the curb cut on West 78th Street was •refined to
allow a right turn lane only for traffic eastbound and a median cut
1 allowing left turns for traffic westbound. A traffic study
conducted by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch, Inc. has been submitted to
1
1
Americana Community Bank 1
August 7, 1991
Page 3
the City in support of this curb cut and new median cut on West
78th Street.
The bank representatives believe that the West 78th Street curb cut
is critical to their operation. From a design standpoint, we
believe this change is not likely to undermine the effectiveness of
traffic flow on West 78th Street. However, it is necessary to note
that the City Engineering Department continues to have some
reservations with the median cut. .Staff notes that the West 78th
Street curb cut does not specifically serve the bank but rather
would connect to the main driveway for the shopping center. We
would strongly recommend against any median breaks serving
individual sites. Ultimately, the Planning Commission, City
Council and HRA will need to make a determination if it is
acceptable on aesthetic grounds. Since at least part of the
landscaped median would be lost if the median cut is approved. If
it is approved, the bank should pay for all associated costs
related to studying, designing and constructing this curb cut.
In an accompanying subdivision request, the outlotis being divided
into two lots, one of which will contain the bank building and the
second of which will be reserved for future development. The
subdivision request is a relatively straight forward action. The
plat should be corrected as required to reflect an additional 10
feet of right -of -way along West 78th Street that has been required
by the City under the Development Agreement.
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission approve the site plan, •subdivision and planned unit
development amendment requests for this proposal with appropriate
conditions.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
General Site Plan / Architecture
The building is situated at the southwest corner of West 78th
Street and Market Boulevard. Access is gained off of a proposed
curb cut on West 78th Street. Staff will discuss in detail the
access aspect later in the report. Parking is located to the west
of the proposed building. Vehicle stacking is located south of the
site and the building so that direct distant views from West 78th
Street, to the north of the site will be minimized. Direct views
of the stacking lanes will be screened by the building and
landscaping from the north of the site. The architecture of the
bank building reflects the shopping center's use of stucco accent
tiles, columns and gabled entries. Colors and material types need
to be specified for staff approval. Low gabled roofs and a strong
masonry base complete the bank's image for the prominent corner
site. The applicant has failed to show a roof top equipment
1
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
•
Page 4
1 screening plan. Such should be submitted prior to the'City Council.
meeting. The applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by
' a masonry wall using the same materials as the building and located
on the southeast corner of the building. Two electric boxes
operated and maintained by NSP, as well as an air conditioning
unit, are located to the southeast corner of the site. These units
are screened by a berm and landscaping to the north, east and
south.
' While we are generally satisfied with the building architecture and
note that the applicant has worked extensively on this project, we
do have several main concerns. These include the illustrated
building addition on the north side of the building paralleling
' West 78th Street, the incorporation of what appears to be an
extended canopied entrance into the plaza area, and the building
roof line. As to the first issue, a building addition has been
illustrated on the north side of the structure. This had been
incorporated into earlier plans and was intended to represent
potential future expansions of the bank facility. Upon review of
I the plans, staff concluded that there was insufficient parking to
support a building addition on this site and believed we had come
to an understanding wherein the addition was to be deleted from the
plans. We wish to make it clear that this building addition is not
' supported by staff and we do not believe we will be in a position
to recommend approval of it in the future. We are therefore
recommending that it be deleted from final plans for the project.
The site on which this bank is situated is a highly visible one at
what is highly likely to become one of the most important
intersection in the Chanhassen CBD. Setting an architectural
1 standard for this bank is difficult in part due to its location.
The PUD approval requires architectural consistency with the main
shopping center building. However, at the same time, this site is
essentially the transition point from the shopping center site into
architectural styles found elsewhere in the CBD. Therefore, we
believe that the architect's intent to combine the style of the
1 shopping center building, along with other downtown buildings such
as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one. We continue to
have some concerns over the visual massiveness of this building and
its proximity to -the street. In part, these concerns will be
addressed by ensuring that the building maintains a 25 foot setback
from the public right -of -way required elsewhere in the shopping
center as well as by the taking of an additional 10 feet along West
' 78th Street which will be reserved for the inclusion of a second
thru -lane when it is needed in the future. However, we continue to
be concerned about the massiveness of the roof line and the
inclusion of relatively diminutive dormers to break this up. We
would propose that the dormers be increased in size to break up the
roof line or that some other structural design for the roof be
considered. We believe a peaked roof is essential on this
1
f ,.._.
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 5
structure but are requesting that the applicant's architect be
somewhat more creative in addressing this concern. How this
concern is addrebsed will also have some bearing on our issue
concerning the HVAC screening mentioned above as well.
The third concern pertains to the.plans for a canopied entrance on
the northwest corner of the building. Staff supports the inclusion
of a highly accentuated main entrance but wants to ensure a 25 foot
setback from the right -of -way is maintained from all structures and
we define the canopy as part of the structure. The plans are
somewhat misleading on this point since it appears as though the
canopy would extend out over a portion of the patio area. Due to
the lack of time, we have not had an opportunity to explore this
more fully with the project architect but are certain that this
matter could be resolved in the final plans.
Parkins /Interior Circulation '
The City's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 200
square feet of gross floor area. The number of parking spaces
required is 34 and the applicant is providing 35 parking spaces
which satisfies the requirements of the ordinance. Traffic will be
directed via West 78th Street running parallel to the westerly edge
of the site then headed east into the bank site. Traffic exiting
the site would either use an exit located at the southeast corner
of the site or utilize the same entrance located to the east of the
- site. A stop sign is proposed at that location to regulate
traffic.
In general, the interior circulation and entrances are reasonable
in our view. The proposed exit along the south property line is
intended to become part of the entrance /exit to whatever develops
on the southern portion of Outlot A. The remaining area of Outlot
A is unlikely to be able to support any other entrances and exits
apart from this one. A cross access easement running in favor of
both lots being created from Outlot A, over this driveway and over
the northern 30 feet of the lot to be created south of the bank,
will be required to ensure that this element can be incorporated.
However, during review of the access proposal by the Engineering
Department, a problem has surfaced. When turning templates were
put on the drive -thru lanes, it became clear that cars exiting the
site would be unable to complete the turn required to transition
into the exit lane. Again, this problem surfaced too late to be
able to discuss it more fully with the project designer. There are
several possible ways of addressing this issue. The first would be
to incorporate a larger radius turn which would require the taking
of additional land off of the southeast corner of the site or the '
reversal of traffic flow through the facility. There may in fact
be other alternatives and we would be open to suggestions from the
project designer as to how to resolve this issue. 1
1
II
II Americana Community Bank '
August 7, 1991
Page 6
I I Access
There are two sets of access points requiring discussion. The
I first is the internal access onto the shopping center driveway
system. The second concerns proposed revisions to the shopping
center access from West 78th Street. As to the first question,
I there are two access points being proposed off the internal
driveway system. The northern most access is the major site
entrance which will serve the parking lot and the drive -thru
facilities as proposed. In discussions with staff, we found some
II difficulty in providing safe access to this site since we wanted to
provide the maximum offset separation between this site entrance
and the major shopping center entry point on West 78th Street. We
II believe the current proposal is acceptable and resolves this
concern.
II The second entrance point is the proposed exit lying adjacent to
the south edge of the site. As proposed, this will serve as the
exit to the drive -thru lanes. In the future, this exit would be
shared with a new entrance to serve whatever is to be located on
II the remaining undeveloped area on Outlot A to the south. Staff
supports this option noting that, due to the relative limited size
of the newly created lot on the south portion of Outlot A and its
I location adjacent to the main entrance to the shopping center from
Market Boulevard, this future common entrance point, shared with
the bank, is likely to be the only means of entering and exiting
this site that can be allowed. Staff is recommending that cross
II access easements be established in favor of both the bank parcel
and the future lot to the south to guarantee that the shared access
arrangement can work in the future.
1 One of the major points of discussion between staff and the
applicant on this proposal concerned external entrances into the
I site. The applicant's original position was that they wanted
entrances to the bank from both West 78th Street and from Market
Boulevard. Staff noted that any additional curb cuts into the
Market Square site are specifically prohibited by the approved PUD
I plan, however, at the applicant's request we did have the city's
traffic consultant, Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch prepare an analysis
of both proposed curb cuts. Their report is attached to the staff
I report. Essentially, they agreed with the city's original position
that a Market Boulevard curb cut into this site is unacceptable
from a traffic safety standpoint. There are simply too any
II traffic movements occurring with southbound cars on Market
Boulevard attempting to decelerate and move to the right to turn
into the main shopping center entrance and cars from making a left
turn to Market from West 78th Street accelerating. A final problem
I occurs with the proposed signalization of the intersection West
78th Street and Market Boulevard that is currently under
consideration by the HRA and City Council. The SRF study concludes
II
II
{
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 7
that the stacking of vehicles waiting for the light to turn green
would extend beyond the point at which the curb cut had been
proposed. '
Discussion then focused on the proposed north median cut into the
shopping center from West 78th Street. A right -in /right -out only
entrance to the main shopping center drive had always been
incorporated into plans at this point. The bank's request called
for the inclusion of a median cut so that westbound West 78th
Street traffic could turn into the shopping center site.
Representatives from the bank believe that this entrance is vital
to their operation. The SRF study indicated that this could be
incorporated from a traffic safety standpoint. It became clear to
staff that the only way we could support this was that the shopping
center entrance continue to be structured as a right -in /right -out
only, thus traffic would be unable to exit the shopping center site
at this point crossing 78th Street median to make a left turn onto
westbound West 78th Street. Westbound traffic on West 78th Street
would, however, be able to turn into the Market Square site.
Staff would never want to be in a position of recommending a median 1
cut to serve a specific site. We believe it would be highly
inappropriate to do so since this would in essence establish a new
turning movement to the benefit of a single property to the
detriment of all traffic flowing through the downtown. However, we
believe this request is somewhat different. This median cut would
not specifically serve the bank but would directly serve the maid
shopping center driveway system. From the studies that have been
done, we believe that it could probably be incorporated in an
acceptable manner from a traffic safety standpoint. We must point
out though that in spite of the SRF study, the City Engineering
Department continues to have some reservations with this request.
The ultimate decision as to whether or not this should be included
truly rests in the hands of the Commission, City Council and the
HRA. Much of this decision will rest on an aesthetic determination
as to whether or not the city wishes to see landscaping in the
center median island and be compromised to some degree to support
the turning movement. Final designs of this curb cut have not been
developed and there is some expectation on the part of staff that
we would be able to salvage much of the landscaping that occurs in 11 this area. We are currently in the process of asking SRF to look
at possible designs for this curb cut in conjunction with their
work on signalization of the downtown intersections which is
currently in process. Should this curb cut be approved, as called '
for on this site plan, staff is recommending that the bank be
liable for all costs associated with the traffic •study and
construction of the curb cut. •
•
1
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 8
Xandscaping
Staff worked closely with the applicant to design the landscaping
plan. Berming is rproposed along the northeast and westerly portion
1 of the site. Staff is recommending additional screening along the
northerly edge of the site to block the parking lot area from views
from West 78th Street.
' Although the landscaping plan appears to be generally reasonable,
we do have several revisions to request. The first is that the
plan does not specify type or size of all materials. Final plans
' should be developed that incorporate this and the size of all
materials must meet or exceed normal city,standards. Secondly, a
hedge and berm is illustrated along the West 78th Street exposure
west of the building. Grading details do not show a berm in this
area and staff does not believe a significant berm can be
incorporated, given the limited size of this area. We are
requesting that details of this area be provided for staff review.
In addition, two additional over -story trees should be incorporated
in this area.
Lighting
Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Two light poles
are proposed. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant
shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5' candles of light
at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for
' approval. Fixtures should match those being used elsewhere in the
shopping center.
Sianaae
The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument
identification sign is proposed at the westerly entrance to the
site. The area of the monument sign is 70 square feet. The
applicant is also showing three 4 -foot high wall mounted signs on
each building elevation.
I Staff has some concerns over the signage proposal. Although it is
attractive, we believe that the number and size of the signs are
excessive relative to other buildings in the shopping center as
well as other buildings in the CBD. The normal provisions of the
sign ordinance are not applicable within the PUD and all
development within it are subject to covenants approved by the
city. We note that the 3 wall mounted signs appear appropriate
given the multiple exposure this building has but note that the
Chanhassen Bank has one major wall mounted sign even though it
occupies the entire south end of a city block. Having said that,
L we are not sure which sign to recommend be deleted since they each
appear to be appropriate given the design and location of the
1
1
•
•
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 9
building. We are, however, going to recommend that the size of
these signs be reduced to a maximum height of 3 feet which is
consistent with approvals granted for the Medical Arts Building,
which was recently considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council. Given the number of signs on the building, we cannot
support the currently proposed 4 foot height.
There is an additional 70 square foot monument sign proposed at the 11 southeast corner of the site adjacent to the internal shopping
center driveway. We find no justification for this sign since the
bank building and all wall mounted signage will be highly visible
from this location. We are recommending that this sign be deleted.
In its place, ,there should be directional signage clearly
illustrating the appropriate bank entrance and drive -thru exit
lanes. 1
Grading /Drainage •
Specific grading and drainage plans were not prepared for this
submittal. Given current conditions on the site 'and the proposed
site plan, grading activity is expected to be minimal. Storm sewer
connections into the shopping center system are illustrated in
concept, but.plans have not been developed. We do not anticipate
any significant problems in this regard but final grading and
drainage plans should be prepared for approval by the city, in
addition to submitting storm water calculations for 10 and 100 year
storm events. Watershed District approval of this plan may be
required, although they have already reviewed the shopping center
plans.
Utilities
City utilities are available to the site. Final plans for utility
connection should be prepared for approval by staff.
park and Trail Dedication ,
The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the city
accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of this
development. Fees are paid at the time of the building permits are
requested.
1
1
1
e ,
II
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 10
COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH PUD ORDINANCE
As a PUD, most of the usual ordinance provisions pertaining to
dimensional criteria are waived.
Required Proposed
Building Setback 25' 25'
Hard Surface Coverage N/A 73%
1 Parking Stalls 34 35
' SUBDIVISION
The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will
serve to split the 1.6 acre outlot into two lots. The northerly
lot will have an area of 40,000 square feet and will be occupied by
the bank building. The southerly lot is vacant and there is no
development proposed on the site at this time. The final plat
needs to be revised to provide the additional 10 feet of right -of-
way along West 78th Street that is being required by the City. The
following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be
required:
1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter
' of both lots.
2. A utility easement running in favor of NSP, located to the
' southeast corner of the building, 10' x 30'.
3. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping center
must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver
County. The plat needs to be revised, as does this requested
lot division to accommodate the additional 10 feet of right -
of -way along West 78th Street that-is being required by the
city.
4. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south
driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel
located south of the bank on Outlot A.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
This application is consistent with the overall planned unit
development concept for Market Square. The only change is the curb
cut and median cut access point off of West 78th Street. As stated
•
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 11
before, a study was conducted by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch
supporting this amendment.
While we believe that this proposal is consistent with the PUD
guidelines established, we note that at the time of writing the PUD
agreement, development contract and final plat for Market Square,
they have not yet been finalized or recorded. A condition should
be added that no construction is to occur on the bank property
until this documentation has been completed to the satisfaction of
the city and a construction time table has been established for
interior streets and utilities on the Market Square site that will
be necessary to support the bank.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
Site Plan Review y 1
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review
#91 -3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29, 1991, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any
signage on site. Sign plans should be revised to eliminate
the monument sign, reduce the wall sign height to 3 feet and
incorporate requested directional signage. 1
2. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north edge
of the site as proposed in the staff report. The applicant
shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of
landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial
guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building
permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size
and type of all plant materials for staff approval.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the
city and provide the necessary financial securities as
required. If the West 78th Street curb cut is approved, the
applicant shall be required to compensate the City for all
costs related to its design and construction. 1
4. Revise architectural plans as follows:
• Incorporate dormers of increased size or other acceptable 1
measures to enhance the design of the roof line.
• Provide details of HVAC screening. 1
1
1
1 Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 12
1 • Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality
shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof.
1 • Provide details of building exterior treatment indicating
consistency with shopping center construction.
1 • Eliminate the proposed building addition from the plans
since adequate parking cannot be provided on site.
' • Revise plans as necessary to ensure that a 25 foot
setback is provided to all portions of the building,
including the entrance canopy.
1 _ 5. Revise the plans as required to ensure that room is provided
for safe turning movements for cars exiting the drive -thru
lanes."
1 Subdivision
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #91 -8
as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991, with the following
conditions:
1 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of
building permits are requested.
2. Provide the following easements:
a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the
perimeter of all lots.
b. A 10' x 30' utility easement located to the southeast
I corner of the bank building running in favor of NSP.
c. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping
center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed
' with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as
does this requested lot division to accommodate the
additional 10 feet of right -of -way along West 78th Street
that is being required by the city.
d. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south
driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel
1 located south of the bank on Outlot A."
Planned Unit Development Amendment
1 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to PUD
#89 -2 as shown on plans dated 29 1991."
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank - 11
August 7, 1991
Page 13
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission reviewed this item on their August 7, 1991
agenda. The applicants indicated that they were comfortable with
the recommendations in the staff report. Most of the Planning
Commission comments focused on two issues, including building
architecture and the inclusion of a median break in West 78th
Street.
On the first issue, the Planning Commission addressed architectural 1
concerns in detail. Staff had worked with the applicant
extensively to revise architectural plans and a number of changes
had been incorporated; however, we continued to be of the opinion
that the roof line as presented gave a somewhat massive appearance.
We noted to the Planning Commission that as an outlot on the Market
Square site, a PUD condition for the Market Square development AI
comes into play. This condition requires that buildings
constructed on outlots be architecturally consistent with Market
Square. The bank attempted to achieve this goal while at the same
time recognizing that it is across the street from other buildings
such as the Hospitality Suites.
The Commission's comments on the building were rather severe. They
believed that the appearance was not generally one of "an inviting"
type of structure and that there was a massive feel to it. Some
suggestions included modifying roof lines, enlarging windows and
altering color schemes. 1
On the matter of the median break that is called for in the plans,
staff indicated that in all honesty that there was some difference
of opinion at a staff level as to whether or not this was
reasonable. The City Engineer continues to have reservations with
this proposal that are fully understood by Planning staff; however,
at the same time we believe it is not unreasonable to think that
there should be a northern entrance into the shopping center
including a median break. As we indicated in the staff report,
there is also a design issue in that median breaks such as this 1
should be limited only to major site entrances for uses such as the
shopping center and not individual buildings. The Planning
Commission strongly agreed with us on this point. The current
proposal complies with this standard since the median break serves
the main shopping center driveway and not the bank site. The other
design issue is that a median of this type is likely to compromise
the landscaping theme on West 78th Street, and this is something
that the City Council and HRA may want to evaluate this. However,
the Planning Commission discussion regarding the median break was
extremely favorable. Each of the members of the Commission voted
to support it.
1
1
•
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 14
The Commission ultimately recommended that the plans be approved
and sent to the City Council. The applicant was strongly
encouraged to rework architectural plans to accommodate the
concerns and issues that have been raised.
11 This matter would normally have come before the City Council on
August 26, 1991. However, staff is attempting to work with the
time demands of the bank, who are under regulatory requirement to
open before the end of the year. We spoke with them on the morning
after the Planning Commission meeting and indicated a reluctance to
take a plan containing unresolved architectural issues to the City
Council. The bank's representative indicated a strong desire to
work with the city to resolve these architectural issues. They
believe that a plan could be presented to the City Council that
would accommodate most of these concerns and if approved, final
details could be worked out with staff after the fact. We agreed
that if an acceptable plan could not be developed prior to the City
Council meeting that this item would be deleted at the applicant's
request and held over to August 26th. We regret that this puts us
in a somewhat uncomfortable position of bringing-to you a set of
plans that have yet to be refined. However, we are trying to
balance this by attempting to meet the bank's time constraints if
this is at all feasible.
The Planning Commission revised conditions pertaining to the
architectural design of the building. These changes have been
reflected below. However, pending submission of final
architectural plans by the bank, staff believes that we may
recommend further changes in these conditions based upon final
plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
1 Site Plan
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve
Site Plan Review #91 -3 as shown on the site plan dated July 29,
1991, subject to the following conditions:
1 • 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any
signage on site. Sign plans should be revised to eliminate
the monument sign, reduce the wall sign height to 3 feet and
incorporate requested directional signage.
2. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the north edge
of the site as proposed in the staff report. The applicant
shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of
landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial
guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building
II .
1
1
1
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 15
permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size
and type of all plant materials for staff approval.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the
city and provide the necessary financial securities as
required. If the West 78th Street curb cut is approved, the
applicant shall be required to compensate the City for all
costs related to its design and construction. 1
4. Revise architectural plans as follows:
• Incorporate dormers of increased size or other acceptable 1
measures to enhance the design of the roof line.
• Provide details of HVAC screening. '
• Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality
shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. 1
• Provide details of building. exterior treatment indicating
consistency with shopping center construction. 1
• Eliminate the proposed building addition from the plans
in part because we would never be necessarily approving
the proposed addition. 1
• Revise plans as necessary to ensure that a 25 foot
setback is provided to all portions of the building,
including .the entrance canopy.
5. Revise the plans as required to ensure that room is provided
for safe turning movements for cars exiting the drive -thru
lanes and submit the same for staff approval.
6. Parking stalls located to the south of the site shall be 1
designated for employees only."
Subdivision 1
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve
Subdivision #91 -8 as shown on the plat dated July 29, 1991, with
' the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of
building permits are requested. 1
2. Provide the following easements:
a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the 1
perimeter of all lots.
1
1
.
Americana Community Bank
August 7, 1991
Page 16
b. A 10' x 30' utility easement located to the southeast
corner of the bank building running in favor of NSP.
c. The final plat for the entire Market Square shopping
center must be submitted to staff for approval and filed
with Carver County. The plat needs to be revised, as
does this requested lot division to accommodate the
additional 10 feet of right -of -way along West 78th Street
that is being required by the city.
d. Cross access easements need to be provided over the south
driveway and northern 30 feet of the newly created parcel
located south of the bank on Outlot A."
Planned Unit Development Amendment
The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to PUD
89 -2 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report dated 10/8/90.
2. Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated July 29, 1991.
3. Americana Community Bank Traffic Study dated June 5, 1991.
4. Project statement.
5. Plans dated July 29, 1991.
6. Minutes of the August 7, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
January 6, 1993 - Page 28
9.
Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View II
Road.
- 10. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that 1
driveway shall be submitted for approval by city staff with the
intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two 11
lots shall be preserved to the extent possible.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: When does this go to City Council?
Krauss: January 25th. 1
Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED
SETBACK LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET. ON PROPERTY ZONED BH. HIGHWAY II
BUSINESS DISTRICT. AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the
public hearing to order.
Kim Jacobsen: I'm Kim Jacobsen. I'm representing the Americana Bank.
Randy Schultz, the President of the bank gives his condolensces. He
couldn't be here. He's got a bad back tonight and he's in bed and maybell
going under surgery but needless to say, we did request that the sign be
approved as I guess we're presenting it now. We did go through the City
Council and we went through with the Planning Commission. We never trieil
to do anything that allowed us to be 2 feet from the property line. We
came from Market Square. It's a PUD. If you can recall, we were here
once before with a development. During that time we had a monument sign
It was located within a few feet of the property line there. When we
came down to Market Blvd, we again represented a monument sign. Never
tried to deceived anyone but we ended up with a monument sign and built
base as part of the general construction package where the contractor
built the masonary base, which happens during the construction. Came at
that point to apply for a sign permit. To put the signage on top of the
base assuming we had no problems. Everything had gone through.
Construction plans had been reviewed. Had been approved by staff. We
looked at the situation and I guess what we've got to say is that we
don't feel we're presenting a problem and not making a precedence out of"
this case. I brought along some photographs. One is the photograph of
our base, which is sitting here. But I think the important thing to
notice about it is that we are about 20 feet from the street. We're a
good 12 feet from the sidewalk and I guess if you look real hard in the
background of this photograph, you can see the Market Square sign. The
one I've got a photograph of is the one that is on Market Blvd. It sits
within a couple feel of the sidewalk. Within 10 feet of the street. It
just seems like, to the average person, a precedence has been set. I mea
they look at that sign and then they look at what the Americana is
proposing and the situation we have been brought into, I don't see that II
i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 29
anyone is going to interpret that you're breaking any precedence or
setting any precedence and I think that from where we're at, we all got
into it innocently. So•what I'd like to do is pass along a couple of
photographs. Way in the background you can see the Market Blvd sign.
This is a photograph of the sign.
Emmings: Can I just ask. Is Miles Lord one of the people that are going
to be on the sign?
Kim Jacobsen: Yes. •
Emmings: I have to disqualify myself. I'll get out of here because I
work with him on a daily basis and there's no way I can take part.
Batzli: Okay.
Kim Jacobsen: And this just shows a picture of the bank. The sign that
we proposed was 9 feet in height. I did some drawings real quickly. The
sign company did a drawing that has what was proposed... We add about 3
feet in height to get to this cap and I guess I don't feel it does
anything for the signage itself. What we tried to do, after looking at
this proposal, and I'll be very honest with you. This was the first
drawing that was done and presented to the owners. We looked at it and
decided that heightwise it was very obstructive. We took 3 feet off and
lowered the top down. The building also is housing a lot of professional
people. Right now we've got 2 law firms that have taken tendency.. Of
1 the two signs I feel overall this sign is less intrusive for the city. It
fits the building well and so that's why we're still asking that we get
this signage approved and allow the variance to leave the base where it's
at and put the sign on it. When you drive along there are no...to the
automobile. At least that would be the one thing that if we thought
there was something that would cause us some problems, we would
definitely say we should move it.
Ledvina: If you were required to move the sign, could you meet the
conditions of the sign ordinance with that 10 foot requirement?
Kim Jacobsen: Yeah. To move that sign, what has happened has been that
we ended up putting more mechanical equipment. They upgraded their
mechanical equipment and to do that we swaied the sidewalk around. To
11 move it back, we're going to lose that sidewalk on that side of the
building which, that would be the worst case. We can move it back, yes
but we're going to lose our pedestrian walk from that side of the
building in.
Ledvina: And that parking lot.
Kim Jacobsen: From that parking lot coming back on through.
Ledvina: But you would still locate it in that relative position?
Kim Jacobsen: That would be my guess is yes. I think they would opt to
locate it, just moving it back that extra 8 feet or whatever the actual
measurement happens to be. -
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 30
Batzli: Any other questions of the applicant right now?
Farmakes: I have a question. What was the thinking behind adding heigh
to the base...top? You're saying that the trade -off happened between the
two drawings that you're showing. 1
Kim Jacobsen: We're still kept within the 9 foot height whether we put
the roof on it or not.
Farmakes: ...the lettering or?
Kim Jacobsen: No. 1
Farmakes: You woke up one morning and decide to.
Kim Jacobsen: Well let's back it up. When a preliminary set of drawing"
was done for the city, the signage was not a developed part. It was
developed to the point that we knew there was going to be signage. We
wanted a monument sign but if you look at the quality of the sketch that
was presented and everything else, it was a concept. After the building
was fully developed we came back and said, we feel the sign is going to
look better with a base to match the building on it. During constructioll
drawings it was represented that way. Like I said, it did appear on all
the construction documents that were approved through the city and that's
why when all of a sudden out of the blue we came to, as soon as we were
going to put the signage on the top is when we came to apply for the sig�
permit and that's when we were notified that we were at, you know too
close to the property line.
Farmakes: This is a while ago and I tried to read the information to
bring me up to date but as I recall we had a discussion about that at the
time. One of the representatives of the bank was asked, what additional"
signage would be going on there, and they thought a couple of major
tenants. And I see that there's a lot more major tenants in the
building.
been represented Jacobsen: I think it's always resented that there would be p
approximately 6 tenants.
Farmakes: Right. But I guess the difference wasn't how many tenants bull
I believe in the discussion as I recall it, that it was the major tenant
that would be built rather than a monument sign. 1
Kim Jacobsen: I've got to be honest with you, I don't remember that
Jeff. Just to be totally honest.
Farmakes: I see that in addition to the tenants, the 6 tenants, that's II
why I'm assuming the 6 tenants...copy is referring to the total of 6
rectangles underneath the Americana Bank. There's also an instant cash II
card. Again, I'm going to ask, was the base added to raise the type. Di
whoever was advising you suggest that you raise the height of the sign?
Kim Jacobsen: No. Not honestly. The base was put on from an 1
architectural standpoint. Not from a sign standpoint. We felt more than
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 31
anything was we wanted it, the sign as I see the sketch originally, did
not tie itself to the building other than the green roof on the top. And
we felt overall that the sign improved itself a lot by putting a base on
it and that was what I guess the thinking process was through it We
architecturally wanted to tie it to the ground a little bit harder, like
the building has beon.
Batzli: Let me ask you something that's not intended to be argumentative
but it may sound that way. You've just gone through telling us that all
this was preliminary and conceptual and everything else and yet you want
11 us to believe that the location was dead set in concrete, If you'll
forgine the pun, even though everything else about the sign is
conceptual.
II Kim Jacobsen: I think the size, we're real close to that so conceptually
yeah. I mean we were conceptually very close to that placement. And
that's as best as we can say. Is that we laid it there. We looked at it
and overall I think that, it was not an issue to be very honest with you
as we went through it. No one at staff noticed it. We didn't even pick
it up as we looked through the plans.
Batzli: Okay. Well we'll probably have more questions for you once we
close the public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to
address the Commission at this time? The record will show that there's
only planning staff and the applicant in the room. Is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
11 Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Joan, do you have comments, questions?
Ahrens: You know I don't know which sign would look better, to tell you
the truth. I mean I know the issue is.
Batzli: Well let me ask a question. Are we even, you know the sign
process. Permit process. We're not a part of that right now. The only
issue that we're really looking at is the variance?
Al -Jeff: The variance.
Batzli: Okay. Do you want us to look at what kind of sign they put up?
Al -Jaff: It would be helpful. What we will approve is what you approved
originally.
Batzli: Okay, unless we tell you differently?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Batzli: Okay.
Ahrens: So the variance is just on the location of the sign?
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 32
Al -Jaff: Correct. And the height not to exceed 8 feet. I just heard
the applicant mention that it's 9 feet?
Kim Jacobsen: No. Right now it's only at...6 feet. It was if we added
the top on it...3 feet if you added the top.
Ahrens: I realize it's a self- imposed hardship by the applicant but I'm
not sure it's a real big deal, considering the location of the Market
Square sign.
Batzli: From the standpoint of setting a precedent you mean? Would you
want others to be able to do this? At least in a PUD we can rationalize"
it's in a PUD, can we not?
Ahrens: Ordinarily I would agree with you but they are, they have the II
base and they have all the mechanicals in place.
Batzli: So to play devil's advocate. In order to get a variance you 11
just have to put in part of the project and then apply for the permit?
Ahrens: No. No.
Batzli: How do we distinguish this? 1
Ahrens: What I think that they've done, I think they've done a nice job"
with the building itself. I think that, I don't see this as an
intentional attempt to.
Batzli: I don't either. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and I
figure out, how do we justify giving them this other than we think it
looks pretty or it doesn't hurt. I'd like to come up with some sort of
rational if we decide to approve this that would allow us to say, we're
allowing this because of some rational reason that we can come up with. II
Ahrens: Because I think it does not have a negative impact on the...
building or the project. Or on any other project that's going to be
developed along here. And the location, as I understand this is similar,
the location of this signage is similar to the location of the Market
Square sign which is across the street, is that correct? 1
Batzli: And so you may be going on the condition of granting a variance
that allows, made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet? I
Ahrens: Yeah, that's it.
Batzli: Jeff. Well let me back up. Did you have a preference as to 1
requiring them to put the original pitched element on there?
Ahrens: I think we should keep the original pitched element on. 1
Batzli: Then they may require a variance for the height.
Ahrens: Variance for the height. 11
1
Planning Commission
g Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 33
Kim Jacobsen: We could probably lower the pitch.
Ahrens: They only have the base on. I don't know why they can't lower
it.
Kim Jacobsen: ...somewhere within this we can live...
Batzli: Does that still tie it into the building? Does the pitch look
silly then compared to the building if you lower. the pitch?
Kim Jacobsen: ...I'm speaking off the top of my head...
11 Batzli: Okay. Jeff.
Farmakes: This started out where I thought that they were adjusting
11 pretty good to our original comments on the building. I particularly
liked the plaza that they were putting in there because I thought it was
an important spot in town aesthetically. As the actual building went
into fruition, the plaza became less and less. I'm not sure if they were
all modifications but in essence it became a little less, by the time it
got to Council it became less of a plaza. I'm looking at the
architecture for the sign and I guess I can say the same thing. The sign
has been downplayed as far as architecturally. It now becomes more of a
utilitarian sign. It's reminiscent of when you go up to the cabin up
north and you see the listing. They're just sort of chalked full of
little items and I'm assuming that if a potential client or professional
service there, just driving by and that person tells them I'm in the
Americana Community Bank building, as many of them do. You're looking
for some identification there that Miles Lord practices here or you're
looking for Advantage Travel: I guess what disturbs me, going back to
the generic implication of this is that we often see these types of signs
where oh yeah, it's a couple of tenants. We're going to have a couple
major tenants in here. And you look at that and you're saying, well
there's 3 names there. That's pretty conservative. You don't see much
of an impact from that. But when it actually comes down to it, in an
effort to sell many of these leases, you see a motivation on the part of
the leasing agent of the building to offer signage. To offer
advertising. I question whether or not the professional services that
every professional in the building has to have a shingle outside. It
becomes more of an advertising issue than a location issue. Particularly
if it's a predominant building. They do it downtown all the time.
I mean you don't see a big list of shingles outside the Northwest Bank
building and there are hundreds of professionals in that building.
Ahrens: Actually there's one...Minnetonka City Bank...brand new building
in Glen Lake and they have, there are seven attorneys in there and other
professionals...and there is no signage whatsoever out in front. It just
says Minnetonka City Bank on the front of the bank building. It's a
beautiful building too and they don't have any identification of anybody
who's in that building.
Farmakes: Well certainly, if a client's trying to find you, it often
says I'm in the so and so Medical Arts building. Or so and so bank
building. So I think as a matter of practicality for the argument of
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 34
identification, the City isn't that big and the issue of identification
and location seems to me, if you're identifying the bank building, you'v
done 99% of the job required. I'm a little worried that it looks
like everything but fthe kitchen sink is tacked on to this sign. As to
the mathematics of raising the base, getting rid of the top, if you put
the top back on and keep the base where it is, whether it was intentional
or an oversight, that you ignored the signage plan, and I recall the
discussion. That was an item to be taken care of at a later date
specifically of what that signage was going to be. So I guess I don't
have, I'm not uncomfortable with the staff's position on that. It is a 11
significant difference, and again I think it's unfortunate that it
becomes a much more utilitarian sign that as a part of the architecture.
As I recall the original concept of that building, that's what the
problem with the building was. It was a very utilitarian building. Ver.
massive and very, what I'd describe to be as an unfriendly structure.
And I'm glad that you re- looked at that issue and changed the building. I
think that I've heard comments of people going through town that they
like the building. They like the look that it's projecting, and I'd lik
to see that in signage. I realize what we're discussing here is, or wha
I understand the issue to be is that somebody went ahead and built this
thing up according to your plan on a misunderstanding and that's where i
was in the plan, and basically somebody came back from the City and said
hey. This is not conforming with our ordinance. So you're trying to get
it to be used. Being that it's sitting there right now as we speak. 111
guess I would, as a pragmatic situation, since this is, as I understand
it. Paul, has this been approved? With the 6 clients. Is that part of
what was worked out on the City Council level?
Al -Jaff: No.
Krauss: There was no deviation from what you saw. 1
Farmakes: So as I recall the discussion, and again we were going to deal
with this at a later date once they applied for the signs, it was being 11
brought forth that, as I recall the conversation, a couple of major
tenants in the building were going to have signs.
Krauss: Well you have the illustration. Is that in their packet? 1
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Batzli: But we don't have the Minutes. 1
Al -Jaff: This is what you approved.
Batzli: From what we
discussed.
Farmakes: Well that drawing conforms to my recollection of our
discussion.
Krauss: Right. But there was no intent to bring it back again. That 11
was going to be the approved sign.
Al -Jaff: Two tenants only.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 35
Farmakes: But again, what I understood it to be is that we we're going
to have a couple of names there, and not 6 which is a considerably
percentage increase. In addition to that, there is an additional
advertising item on the sign. Is that also consistent with what we're
doing with monument signs?
11 Krauss: You mean the instant cash logo?
Farmakes: Yeah.
Krauss: That's arguable. I mean we've allowed people to have...
Farmakes: Is that a business logo or service logo in addition to?
I . Krauss: It's probably a service logo. It's probably like Target
sticking Pharmacy up in the right hand corner of the building. It's an
advertisement for one of their services.
Ahrens: At least it's not an ear.
Farmakes: I'm going to stop taking up the time here so we can get going
but I really am concerned about these monument signs. That when we
actually leave the general concept with you and then they actually come
and are built, they are different. And the reason that they're different
is pretty obvious. There's a motivation factor on the part of the
leasing agent to give as much as possible to get the lease. What you get
is everything and the kitchen sink tacked onto these signs. I think we
should be much more specific up front as to what's going to happen.
Krauss: I think you were. I mean I think you approved that sign. Those
were the reader boards that you approved on that sign. We were quite
specific. I mean this was an attractive looking building. The sign was
part of the package. That was the sign. Now the sign got shifted, and
argueably there's some question as to where the base actually might wind
up but it shouldn't change what it looks like. Nobody ever gave anybody
any authorization to do that.
Farmakes: I'll leave it with that. I think I've made my point.
Batzli: Matt. Thanks Jeff.
Ledvina: I agree with Jeff's comments as it relates to the signage. I
would support the original design of the sign but I think the key to the
variance is where is the sign located. I have a question for Sharmin.
Is the Market Square sign, is that non - conforming or is that?
Al -Jaff: Part of the PUD. So the setbacks were different than.
Ledvina: But the setbacks would not meet the requirements that would be
imposed on Americana Bank?
Krauss: In a standard zoning district, no.
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 36
Ledvina: Okay. So there have been, you know just from a general
perspective, there are other signs in the area that are variant of the
ordinance?
Krauss: Relative to location. 1
Ledvina: Right.
Krauss: But you shouldn't forget the fact that Market Square was
required to come in with sign covenants. There's only one pylon sign on
the entire property and I think there was a limitation, we weren't going
to allow.
Al -Jaff: Outlot A was going to have one. 1
Krauss: One, but there's two or three lots, outlots that were going to
have nothing. So there was a give and take on that one.
Ledvina: Okay. And then in terms of the specific location of the sign,
are there any utilities that are directly below it or how close are the
nearest utilities for that?
Al -Jaff: There aren't any utilities underneath it. But we're still
requiring that should you approve this, that the applicant enter into and
encroachment agreement.
Ledvina: But how close are the nearest utilities? Do we know that, in
terms of the water or the sewers or anything there electrical? 1
Al -Jaff: There aren't any utilities.
Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I think that this does qualify for a variance
1 would support that. I guess looking at, you know some of the findings
that the staff is contending that really don't apply. I think that you 11
can stretch the criteria and make these, you know make the variance
allowable here for items a and also item c. That's my opinion. So I
guess specifically then I would support the variance with the two
conditions that the staff has recommended here. 1
Batzli: So you would limit it to the Americana Bank and then the two
tenants?
Ledvina: Right. Yeah, I think that we should go back to what we
originally approved in terms of what we thought was going to be on that
sign. And then also the actual, the design in terms of the pitched roof"
Where the pitched element of that sign.
Batzli: Joan, I don't even know if I asked you. Did I ask you whether I
you wanted 2 or allow more names on there?
Ahrens: I think we should approve the sign as it was approved originall
with just the location.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 — Page 37
Krauss: I think you understand there's also a significant difference in
size. The sign.
Batzli: It's 5 fee bigger?
Krauss: Well it grew by 10 square feet but the base of the sign is
approximately 4 feet wider or longer than it was before.
Ahrens: We'll have to change the base. •
11 Farmakes: They basically turned it upside down from the roof now is the
brown.
Krauss: Below the ground.
Batzli: But we approved a 70 square foot and they're asking for 75.
Ledvina: Is the base part of the footage of the sign?
Krauss: We typically don't calculate the base.
Batzli: Ladd, make sense of all this for us.
Conrad: I don't see any harm in allowing the variance. There's nothing
to be improved by making them move the sign, from anybody's standpoint.
Batzli: What about the changes?
Conrad: Now we get into some philosophy of stuff here you know, and I
think what I'm hearing Jeff say is real true. If there was a signage
that said Americana Community Bank and everybody knew who was there, that
becomes a landmark, and we don't need details. But you also take a look
at every other building in town and every tenant wants name recognition.
They want their name outside, and we've allowed it. Again we're being
11 real naive, and we don't see all the facts when things come in for site
plan review. But it's just a fact of life that people want their name
out there. And I don't know that it's a bate and switch. To a degree I
think sometimes developers come in and say here's something and they get
their foot in the door and they come back and they ask for a little bit
more. Obviously that's a trick they play with outlots and stuff like
that. They can do that with this also but also you don't get definition
to who you're tenants are going to be. You're proposing long before you
have a tenant mix. So there are reasons for changing things. I don't
think what's been proposed is necessarily attractive but'I also don't
think it's necessarily worst than other things I've seen in town. We're
reviewing things on a real arbitrary basis. We really are. You know
it's sort of a willy nilly type of deal and I'm just not, from a
standpoint of profile, one would think that what was presented right now
is better. A lower profile. Less obtrusive. I don't think it works for
the tenants. Even at 30 mph driving by that sign, I think it's tough to
read. Letters, I can't tell how big the letters are.
Batzli: They're a foot.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 38
Conrad: The letters on the top for Americana, you know if I take a look"
at the block is 12 inches so the letter size is 6 inches. And therefore
the ones below it might be a little bit less. So 6 inches, in the
business, if you create a letter under 10 inches, you can't read it at 411
mph. Well I don't know what at 30. So I don't think it's real useful
but the tenants are asking for this stuff. I'm babbling here. I don't
think it's attractive but I don't have a problem with it in terms of
taking down a profile. I don't like a 9 foot profile sign. I think
that's more obtrusive than what we're seeing here. This is not
necessarily pretty but'it's in my mind less obtrusive than the other one
Think of what you can do. If we put 2 tenants on the other one, big. I
don't know. We're going to, when we see the sign that, or we may not se
the sign but it's not going to be attractive necessarily. But we're
saying that 6 small type faces are worst than 2 big type faces. I think"
that's kind of arbitrary and I think we have this conversation every tim
a sign comes in and maybe we should try to figure out what we want to do
with this type of stuff, recognizing. You know I'd like to make it
consistent throughout Chanhassen. I feel Market Square, everybody get's'
their, they're listed aren't they. On the monument sign. Isn't
everybody listed out there?
Krauss: Festival is listed but I don't know if anybody else is. 1
Ahrens: They don't need it.
Conrad: Because they have visibility with their signs on the face of the
building, yeah.
Farmakes: Are we differentiating retail?
Conrad: Again, I'm not sure that service versus retail, service versus II
product is any different. A sign brings people in. A sign to pick up
charcoal is the same as a sign to go to a dentist. Not quite. I would
have a tough time defending that a whole lot but it's close. Anyway,
it's not worth me talking anymore. So again, the variance is aceptable
to me. I think there's just absolutely nothing to be gained by switchin
the thing. I would vote for the, I guess what I'd like to do is to see
the sign, the applicant bring in a better version of the sign so I couldll
make a realistic, a better decision. I guess I'm not real fond. I gues
I'd like to see something better brought in before I make a decision on
how it looks. 1
Batzli: Well you didn't make sense of it for me Ladd.
Conrad: Let me just say one thing. Long term, we should get a grip on '
visibility for businesses that move into Chanhassen.
Ahrens: We said that 2 years ago. 1
Conrad: I know, and we're still talking about it and every time somebody
comes in, we argue. We make decisions and I'm not sure how we're making"
them.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 39
Farmakes: It is an issue that's being dealt with with the sign
ordinance. ...that, it's grouped with a lot of other...
Krauss: The part about who gets signage and how'many tenants should have
are something that the sign ordinance should look at. What districts
have signs and what not. The part that bothers me is that this is one of
the first buildings where design of the building and the site plan and
it's relationship to downtown was a fundamental element at it's approval.
11 And the building works real well but all of a sudden, because this is a
sign. It's a structure but because it's a sign we're saying well, you
know. A square box is the same thing as a pitched roof and we're losing
11 the design continuity between the site and it's relationship to other
sites doesn't matter anymore. The variance for the 2 foot setback or
whatever is really nominal. I mean I'd rather it not be there but that
really is fairly inconsequential. But it does seem as something of a
setback for us to be moving in the direction of having a design review
ordinance where these kinds of things grow in importance and we have the
first case where we actually did make the attempt to consider all those
things and it just goes by the boards because they decided to change
their mind. See I don't know what names should be on the sign but I
think I know what it should look like.
11 Farmakes: I believe we have the tendency here to spend far more athetic
time talking about trees and bushes and the amount of square footage that
they take up and totally ignoring the amount of square footage that we're
adding to this city in the areas of backlit plexiglass and attractives
that are serving the purpose of advertising and not serving the purpose
of it's implication. If we're going to use the basis of what we used
last year or 10 years ago or 20 years ago, I don't think we're going to
improve as we go along and as we become more sophisticated in our
development and as more and more large corporations come in here, they're
not only going to incorporate these issues in monument signage but even
bringing signage into our architectural building itself. Through in
essence make a building that is in itself a sign, and that's what you're
seeing more and more in the directions of franchising. We've got to
readdress this issue, because it is an important one for the overall
community in what we see here. It's our perception of where we live and
it's too easy to forget about that.
Batzli: Let me ask the applicant. I assume that the old sign doesn't
fit on the base that you've constructed.
Kim Jacobsen: I guess conceptually it could just as long as it fits on
the ground like it is there. We have 9 1/2 feet of height on that sign
as it's drawn in that conceptual sketch.
11 Batzli: My sentiment is this, and then I'll let somebody make a motion.
I think we're in agreement that we're probably, we would allow them to
build on the base they've constructed. I think the consensus seems to be
that other than Ladd, we would like to see the pitched element. I don't
know that we're concerned about the overall height but if it's within
reason, and it sounds like there's a consensus that we're limiting it to
the Americana Community Bank advertisement for itself and then 2 main
tenants. I guess I would, I don't know. Going to a lot of different
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 40
companies and a lot of different professionals, from my own personal
standpoint, I kind of like to see the names out there so I know who I'm II
visiting and that I'm at the right location. But I guess I don't quite
view this as being bs structurally significant as someone telling me
they're in the IDS or the Medical Arts Building. When I'm going to a II
small community and I'm not familiar with it, I guess it is more
convenient for me personally to see a name on a sign so I know where I'm
at but. I'd also like to see on condition 1, if we do approve it, that II
we're not held liable for damages done to the sign while accessing
traveling over or otherwise performing maintenance within the utility and
drainage easement. In other words, if we have to go over the easement II
and there's damage done, even though we're not actually performing
maintenance at the time, we should still be held liable. So does someone
have a motion?
Ledvina: I'll move that the Planning Commission approve a variance to
Sign Permit #92 -11 subject to the two conditions in the staff report with
the first condition being modified to include any other activities that II
the city performs within the drainage easement that's associated with th
sign. And 2 as designated within the staff report.
Batzli: Is there a second? �
Ahrens: Second.
Batzli: Discussion.
Conrad: Was there a second? 1
Batzli: Joan seconded it.
Conrad: Discussion. So, point number 2 says, incorporate the pitched II
element in the sign.
Batzli: I don't believe that it says limited to the 2 tenants. '
Ledvina: Well, the original design shows 2 tenants so again,
specifically doing that.
Farmakes: Address that separately?
Batzli: I don't know. We have a new proposed sign design. 1
Ledvina: We're not approving that sign design.
Batzli: Well, but it seems like we're talking about it when we say we'll
incorporating things into that sign design. This to me is the request
for the variance. This sign. So I feel like I'm approving this sign
with these conditions. Is that fair reading?
Ledvina: Okay. Can I make an amendment then?
Batzli: Well you can move to make an amendment.
1
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 January 6, 1993 - Page 41
Conrad: Can we make these two separate things? Can we talk about the
variance and then can we talk about a sign? How come we're talking about
a variance? Is the changing of the design of the sign a variance?
Krauss: No. It's deviation from the site plan approval.
Batzli: So we should separate the two? Okay. Would you like to
withdraw your motion to make a new one or do you want us to vote on your
motion?
Ledvina: No, I withdraw the motion.
11 Batzli: Do you withdraw your second?
Ahrens: Yeah.
Batzli: Okay.
Ledvina: Okay, so we want to just, with this variance, just have
condition 1. And then did you want another motion then?
Batzli: I think then we have to talk about what the sign looks like
after we approve the variance.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I would move that the Planning Commission approve a
variance to Sign Permit #92 -11 subject to the applicant entering into an
encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be
held liable for any damages done to the sign while conducting any
activities within the easement which may also include maintenance.
Conrad: I'll second that.
Batzli: Is there any discussion?
11 Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance to the Sign Permit #92 -11 subject to the
following condition:
11 1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the
city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages
done to the sign while conducting any activities within the easement,
11 which may also include maintenance. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1/
Batzli: Now Paul, as far as what we would then move or recommend
approval of is a change to the site plan?
Krauss: That's the way I would see it. You approved that sign as a part
of the site plan.
Batzli: But we don't know the site plan-number.
Al -Jaff: Yeah we can get that.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 42 1
Krauss: Leave it blank. Oh, we've got it here. 1
Batzli: Okay. Does anyone have a motion regarding?
Conrad: Actually I'd like to table it but I don't know if that serves.
Kim, do you want us to table it and come back or do you want us to act o
it now? Or what's your recommendation.
Kim Jacobsen: I guess I'm in a real great quandry. I guess I'd just as i
soon have you act on it and go from here to Council because I think we're
getting very arbitrary as far as, it's hard for me to look at something
as being a sign and say, within your ordinance I don't think you
stipulate the number of people that are on a sign. You stipulate the
square footage that you can put on a sign, and I guess if you're going t
restrict me by square footage, I'd say fine. But we're rewriting the
laws as we go forward because in...concept again we said, tenant 1,
tenant 2. There's no reason there's 2 tenants on there. There's more
words on there. It could have said Joe Schmoe, Sam and Larry. We had II
nothing to do with...to be very honest with you.
Conrad: So you want us to react right now? You'd rather not.
Kim Jacobsen: I would rather go forward from here and...at City Council"
because I really think they're rather arbitrary points that right now
within your ordinances I'm not exactly sure what we're restricting.
You're writing a new ordinance as we're sitting here is my impression. II
Krauss: I think that Kim is possibly right relative to who gets signagell
space on a sign. There is nothing in the ordinance that dictates that
and argueably one word is no different than the other in what you've
approved. What I do think you did approve as part of the site plan is
the size, location and the shape. 1-
Batzli: But we just changed the location.
Krauss: Changed the location by variance.
Batzli: You think he would have been happy for crying out loud but he
wants more now. Okay. With that understanding and the understanding
that he wants to move forward to Council, is there a motion?
Ahrens: Why do we need a motion? 1
Al -Jaff: You need a site plan amendment.
Batzli: If we wanted to amend it, we could. If we wanted to approve hill
change. His request to change. To not have the pitched element. To
change the square footage of the sign from 70 to 75.
Ahrens: Ladd is the only one who wants to do that. If he wants to make
a motion.
Conrad: No, I'm not sold on it. Yet. I'm not sold on it yet. I think"
I could be, very easily. Again, my point is, anytime you take down a
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 43
profile sign, you're improving aesthetics and you can junk up a sign so
easily that we're playing arbitrary games here. 2 tenants versus 6. A
good logo versus a bad logo makes a whole heck of a lot of difference so
we're in never never land here on this. But at this point in time, I
guess I can't say to change this. I can't say to change the specs of the
sign.
' Batzli: I'd be perfectly willing to entertain a motion to deny his
request to change this signage, as approved in the site plan. Or we can
give the Council absolutely no guidance and let them deal mith it.
Ledvina: Isn't this actually part of the sign permit then?
Batzli: Yes.
Ledvina: And so they can deal with it with the sign permit. We don't
give sign permits here or approve sign permits.
Batzli: I don't think the Council does, unless.
A1- ,Taff: No, that would be done at staff level.
Ledvina: Right. So you have everything you need, based on what we
approved previously to take it forward right?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay, it's just the variance that we need to deal with.
Batzli: If the applicant has requested a change to the site plan, as
they have have they done that properly? Do we have to act on that
tonight? I mean they requested a variance for the location. Do we have
to act on their request to change the site plan?
Krauss: Do you want to make your feelings known to the City Council? Do
you have to do it, no. I mean that's not technically. Well, I don't
know how you could avoid it. i mean he is asking for a different sign
and the location is different but it's a different sign.
Batzli: But is that the process as part of the sign permit process? That
he went to you. You guys said this is different, so do you come to us?
1 Krauss: I guess theoretically we could ask him to come back in with a
separate request for a site plan amendment. It would be the first time
we did that but that's technically what we're doing right now anyway.
I'll leave that up to you. I guess if it's going to go to the City
Council, the likelihood the Council, I mean it's not an earth shattering
issue when taken in context and the Council's likely to want to move on
it and get it out of the way.
Batzli: Okay. What I'd propose we do then is, if we don't have a
motion, I would like at least for us to give guidance to the Council how
we feel about it and I'll just ask everybody how they feel and you can
let the Council know that that was our thoughts and they can yea or nay
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1993 - Page 44 1
it. So if there's no motion. Joan, what I'm looking for is increase t
square footage, pitched element. Those are the two changes. Do you war
to see that? Those things on there.
Ahrens: I don't think the square footage should be increased. I like
the pitched element in there. I don't think there should be any change
to the original site plan approval.
Batzli: Other than the 8 foot variance?
Ahrens: Other than the variance which we just made a motion on.
Farmakes: I'd agree with that. I'd also question the issue, if you're
going to change the signage Itself and you're going to do a far more
technically proficient drawing on the signage you have changed compared I
to the sign that was originally on the site plan, which has no, only a
scale referring to the issue, and I believe that the surrounding elements
are out of proportion to that size. I think that if we're going to get"
into a site plan, and I was here at the time and I recall we discussed
this. We're going about this the wrong way and to approve something like
that would be to make a farce of that process. I wouldn't do that.
Ledvina: I agree with Joan and Jeff.
Batzli: Okay, Ladd. '
Conrad: I think the footage should be the same as we approved. I think
the applicant should submit a better rendition or illustration of the
proposed sign. I think a lower profile sign is preferable and I think
more tenants is acceptable.
Batzli: My sentiment is, I would, until I had better reasons, I would II
say go with the old sign. I'm not adverse to allowing more tenants on
there but I would prefer to see the roof element incorporated, unless we
did have better reasoning as to why it's not on there and a little bit
better renditions of what all this will look like, because it is a chap
to the site plan and the perspective as to what it's going to look like
on the site plan, the new one, I don't think we've been given enough
information so, I guess that's what you can take to the Council.
Conrad: I just want to echo a footnote. Developers don't know what the
mix of tenants are going to be. They don't know that when they build ill
They're hoping. Somebody comes in and says, I'll take 5,square feet an
somebody says I'll take 12. They don't know it until they build it so.
Batzli: I'm not adverse to that but I think the applicant should at
least present to the Council that information that we would have liked to
have seen, at a minimum. Okay. Thank you very much for coming in. An
this variance will go to the Council when?
Krauss: 25th.
1
1