6. Amendment to Site Plan approval, signate for Chan Medical Arts Facility, 470 West 78th St. 1
C I TY 0 F --
1
ifl‘
cHANHAssEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
Action by C^1• q//— ;:• ' .
MEMORANDUM F'."3rSi r-_.
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I -`ft____
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Cyst: '._-.5 ;,)fl
DATE: May 1, 1991 -76777-----7,77,7--, ,y
1 __ _ti
SUBJ: Chanhassen Medical Arts Building Signage
1 The applicants made a request to revise the sign package for the
Medical Arts Building to expand the size of a ground mounted
- 1 monument sign over the approved plans and to add tenant signage to
this sign which was originally restricted to a building
identification sign. It also made a minor request to marginally
I increase the size of a directory sign located at the rear of the
building. Staff originally had serious reservations with this
proposal. We have not made a secret of the fact that we believe
our sign ordinance is inadequate in terms of achieving well
1 designed, functional aesthetic sign packages and in addition, the
background on this item is extremely complex. The building was
required, as a condition of site plan approval, to get a sign plan
I package approved by the Planning Commission, which superseded the
limitations of the sign ordinance. Last year an amendment to the
sign package was approved to give additional tenant signage. Staff
I has had reservations with the potential of indiscriminately
increasing the signage on this building each time a tenant makes a
request because of its visual and aesthetic impact on both the
elevation of the Medical Arts Building and on the Chanhassen CBD in
II general. We therefore opposed the requests as they went before the
Planning Commission on March 20th.
I The Planning Commission discussed this matter at length, ultimately
voting 6 to 1 to recommend denial of the sign package that had been
submitted. The Planning Commission was concerned with the
increasing number of sign requests related to this building and the
I lack of coordination being shown. However, most of the members of
the Planning Commission did support looking into an alternative of
adopting a revised sign package. As' generally outlined by the
I Planning Commissioners, this revised sign package would include
additional sign bands on the front of the building to accommodate
one or two more tenant signs. Lfter this, there would be no more
1 signage allowed on the building and distribution of signage to
I
I
11 Medical Arts/Ridgeview Building Signage
May 1, 1991
Page 2
individual tenants would be the building owner's responsibility.
The monument sign, which had been proposed for an increase in area
and to accommodate tenant signage, was to go back to its original
proposed use as a project identifier and size. Lastly, covenants
would be developed pertaining to the building and would ultimately
11 alternative recorded against the property. This was offered as an
alternative to the developer but was not further pursued after the
meeting.
' Staff met with the applicants after the Planning Commission meeting
to work out a compromise approach to signage as outlined by the
Planning Commissioners' comments. A sign package has been prepared
' and is attached to this report. Essentially, what it does is
modify the mid building sign band to increase its height from 2 to
4 feet to accommodate different type styles and logos. The single
sign panel has been broken up into 3 distinct sign areas so that an
' additional 2 tenant signs results. The sign package further
provides that all remaining front and rear elevation signage will
be uniform with white letters, similar to those which exist on the
' building at the present time. The Gold Star Mortgage sign, which
deviates from this standard, would be converted to the white letter
standard at such time that a new tenant occupies the space. Sign
covenants have been developed that detail allocated sign area and
size limiting the use of logos to the center sign panel. We
reviewed the concept with the Planning Commission informally at
last Wednesday's meeting. They appear to support the concept but
objected to the increased size (from 2 ' wide to 4 ' wide) of the
middle sign panels. They also objected 'to the proposed use of
multi-colored panels in this area given the white signage
' elsewhere.
Staff is supportive of the concept that has been developed. We
' believe it achieves the aim of the applicants in providing
identification for the tenants without significantly disturbing the
front building elevation. We share some of the Planning
Commissioners' concerns regarding the size and color of the new
' panels but believe that this is getting into a subjective area
without having strong guidelines to follow. The sign covenants are
also reasonable. We question #H which states that auxiliary
' signage such as that used for grand openings and sales shall be
subject to approval by the landlord. We wish to have a
modification implemented in the covenants which state that there
' shall be no signage posted in windows, nor shall there be ground
mounted or other temporary exterior signage utilized for this
building. We believe that both are inconsistent with the sign
package and with the office orientation of the building. We would
' also recommend that the sign covenants be required to be recorded
with the property so that they are part of the permanent record
pertaining to this building.
I
I
Medical Arts/Ridgeview Building Signage
May 1, 1991
Page 3
The Council may wish to approve the package as described with -
conditions. However, you may also wish to consider approving the
concept and returning it back to the Planning Commission for final
approval. We make this proposal because while the Planning
Commission outlined this sort of a compromise, it may be useful to
allow them to have final approval of its details since they have
already devoted extensive time to the signage for the building.
Staff has prepared two actions for your review that would
accommodate either option.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council reviewed this item at their April 8th meeting.
Staff related Planning Commission comments that were informally
received at the previous Planning Commission meeting on this item
to the Council for their consideration. The Council ultimately
remanded this proposal back to the Planning Commission for final
recommendation prior to their acting formally on the request.
As with the Planning Commission, the Council was somewhat split on
exactly what should be done, however, they did indicate a general
acceptance with the sign panel arrangement as proposed that would
result in 3 additional tenant signs. They also indicated some
receptivity to the introduction of color in this portion of the
building. The primary item being questioned is the additional
width of the middle sign panels which were increased from 2 feet on
the previous request to a maximum height of 4 feet with this
proposal.
In our opinion, the sign proposal has considerably improved over
the original request and most aspects of it are supported by staff.
We are becoming somewhat reluctant to give definitive
recommendations on some aspects of the sign since this is entering
into a highly subjective analysis within insufficient guidance
being provided by existing ordinances and prior discussions by the
Planning Commission and Council.
Several points warrant further examination. Staff has recommended
that the covenants be designed to prohibit temporary signage and we
believe that this is reasonable policy. However, we also agree
with the applicant that temporary leasing signage for space in the
building, as appropriate, may be considered acceptable and are
willing to work with them to provide suitable language in the
covenant . Leasing signs should be relatively small containing
only such information as is necessary and should be used for -a
limited duration. Relative to the size of the new, central signs,
in discussions with the applicant, it is our understanding that the
use of the term sign panel as such in this area is incorrect.
Unlike the panel arrangement that exists on the balance of the
building, the 3 signs allocated in this area will be free standing '
I
Medical Arts/Ridgeview Building Signage
May 1, 1991
Page 4
letters that are wall mounted. The maximum height of these letters
and logo would be 4 feet, as proposed. We believe the covenants
should be modified, whichever height is accepted, to ensure that
the width of the signs are acceptable and consistent. Simply
dividing the available space into thirds could wind up with signs
being extremely different in terms of visual impact. For example,
you could wind up with a sign that is 4 feet high and 19 feet long
being next to a sign that measures 2 feet by 6 feet. Sign
covenants, in our opinion, should be modified to ensure that the
signage in this area is consistent to a common standard. The
American Family Sign illustrated on the submittal has a length of
approximately 12 feet and we believe that this is consistent with
' an equal distribution of spaces in this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
' The Planning Commission discussed this matter on April 17, 1991.
As on previous occasions, this matter was discussed at length. The .
Commissioners felt that since the City Council remanded this item
back for their consideration, that they should be free to discuss
all aspects of the proposal. Consequently, they had discussions as
to the number of signs, the size of signs, as well as the color and
content of signs. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the signs in Area C as follows:
1. There will be a maximum of 3 signs in Area C.
2 . The maximum sign height will not exceed 24 inches with no
individual letters higher than 10 inches.
' 3 . Sign covenants shall be revised to prohibit temporary signage,
either wall mounted or ground mounted excepting temporary
' lease signs for which criteria will be established by staff.
4 . Sign covenants shall be revised to include a statement that
all signage must be approved and permitted by staff.
The Planning Commission was silent on the question of color. It is
their belief that color, as well as logos, could be allowed
anywhere on the building. The motion was approved on a 3 to 2
vote. The two individuals who voted against it raised concerns
with the number, size and color of signs on what they perceive to
' be an office building.
The Planning Commission recommendation deviated from the request by
the applicant in several areas. First of all the applicants were
' not requesting the use of colored signage outside of Area C. They
are willing to go with monochromatic signs and as contained in the
covenants, the Goldstar Mortgage sign would be converted to a
monochromatic sign upon a change in tenant. In addition, they were
I
Medical Arts/Ridgeview Building Signage I
May 1, 1991
Page 5
requesting a sign height of 4 feet in Area C to allow the
installation of logos.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised '
his proposal. He is attempting to develop a compromise between the
Planning Commission recommendations and what he believes are
required to satisfy the needs of his tenants.
1. The applicant is proposing a maximum sign height in Area C be
reduced from 4 feet to 3 feet. This is one foot less than his
original proposal but one foot higher than the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
2 . The maximum height of letters would be reduced from 3 feet to
1 foot. The current request is still 2 inches higher than the
10 inches recommended by the Planning Commission for
individual letters. Under the applicant's proposal, a 3 foot
wide sign band could contain two lines of type, each 12 inches
high.
3 . The applicant is appearing to develop language consistent with I
staff's proposal that temporary signage be prohibited except
for temporary lease signs. However, the language proposed by
the applicant does not quite resolve this matter but we feel
this is a change in wording that could easily be accommodated.
4 . The request still calls for the use of monochromatic signage
on all locations outside of Area C.
SUMMARY ,
Based upon previous actions by the Planning Commission and City
Council, we are now down to two primary areas of disagreement. The
City Council must determine if the sign band height should be 2
feet or 3 feet and if the maximum height of letters should be 10
inches or 12 inches. As I related to the Planning Commission and
earlier to the City Council, staff is being placed in a difficult
position of attempting to make reasonable recommendations on an
issue that is becoming overly subjective. Due to the lack of a
good sign ordinance and any sound policy discussions on signage
pertaining to our community, we are essentially reduced to flying
by the seat of our pants. I am reluctant to make a strong
recommendation from this position since what you would be getting
is more of staff's feelings about an issue rather than a
professional response based on firm guidelines or ordinances.
Staff has long held that the amount of signage and style of signage
allowed on office buildings such as what is now being called the
Ridgeview Center Building must be cognizant of the fact that this
is a multi-story office building and not a shopping center. We
recognize the valid rights of tenants to have opportunities to
I
' Medical Arts/Ridgeview Building Signage
May 1, 1991
Page 6
identify themselves so long as the design integrity of the building
and of the CBD in general is not compromised. We note that the
' number of signs on the front elevation of the building has increaed
from 3 to 5 for a current total of 7. We have a preference for
recommending the standard established by the Planning Commission
since we believe it gives reasonable latitude to the applicant
without severely compromising the city's design standards. The
Planning Commission's rationale that signage across the building
front should be consistent, seems to us, to have merit. However,
' we recognize due to the logo restrictions inherent in the sign that
these may not allow the applicant to accommodate the standard
American Family Insurance sign that is being requested. We are
' reluctant to see sign covenants to deal with a specific tenant's
requirements, I would prefer this decision be made in the long term
and best interests of the building and of the community.
' We also want to stress that we recognize that the applicant has
made good faith attempts to modify the proposal to resolve the
Planning Commission's concerns. The difference in sign height
between 2 feet and 3 feet does not appear to be major. However, in
'. our opinion this does not provide sufficient reason for us to
recommend any changes to the Planning Commission's position. We
are therefore recommending that the Planning Commission's
conditions be adopted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following motion:
' "The City Council approve Site Plan Amendment #88-17 to amend the
signage plan for the Chanhassen Medical Arts/Ridgeview Medical Arts
Building subject to the following conditions:
1. There will be a maximum of 3 signs in Area C.
2 . The maximum sign height will not exceed 24 inches with no
' individual letters higher than 10 inches.
3 . Sign covenants shall be revised to prohibit temporary signage,
either wall mounted or ground mounted excepting temporary
lease signs for which criteria will be established by staff.
' 4. Sign covenants shall be revised to include a statement that
all signage must be approved and permitted by staff.
5. Traffic signs allowed in accordance with City Codes.
' 6. The sign covenants shall be drafted in a recordable format and
recorded against the title of the parcel in question, with the
city involved in the chain-of-title. "
II
Medical Arts/Ridgeview Building Signage II
May 1, 1991
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS ,
1. Letter from Bob Copeland dated April 25, 1991.
II
2 . Signage covenants for building.
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 17, 1991.
4 . City Council minutes dated April 8, 1991. I
I
II
II
II
I
I
1
II
•
1
. 1
I
II
II
I .. '
• .
Copeland-Mithun, Inc. ,
IThe Building Company
II April 25, 1991
Mr. Paul Krauss .
II
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
. P.O. Box 147
IChanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Ridgeview Center Signage '
Dear Paul:
•
Enclosed for your review and approval is a revised Sign
I Covenant for Ridgeview Center dated March 25, 1991. I have
tried to be responsive to the concerns of the Planning
Commission and to simplify the document by only addressing
II the important issues. The significant changes from the
original covenant dated March 29, 1991 are as follows: '
II 1. The maximum height of a sign in the South Middle Area is
reduced from 4' to 3'.. -
2. The maximum height of a letter is reduced from 3' to 1' .
I3. Temporary real estate signs to advertise sale-or lease
are allowed in accordance with the city codes.
I4. Traffic signs are allowed in accordance with the city
codes. •
I5. A- permit from the city is required for all signs.
I hope this new covenant satisfies the concerns and that you
can recommend approval to the City Council. Please let me
know if you have any questions. -
ISincerely yours, •
ge.6-- -
Robert R. Copeland, P.E.
President
IF s- ' . .
RECEIVED
APR261991
' Cil Y ur c,rnnwriASSEN
7625 Metro Boulevard,Suite 45•Edina,Minnesota 55439
1 FAX 612-835-3190.612.8323302
I
SIGN COVENANT I
for
Ridgeview Center I
470 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota
April 25, 1991 1
Exterior signage shall be allowed as follows: '
A. On the Building
1. South Middle Area: The South Middle Area is a 3' high
by 58' wide area on the south elevation of the
building facing West 78th Street between the two
projecting porticoes.
a. A maximum of three tenant identification signs
attached directly to the siding is permitted in
this area.
b. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name or
service offered. Logos, emblems and similar
identifying devices are permitted.
c. Single letters may not exceed 12" in height. The ,
maximum overall height of a sign including logo,
if any, is 3' .
d. Signs may be illuminated or non-illuminated.
2. Other Than The South Middle Area: This area
is everything except the South Middle Area on the
building.
a. A maximum of four tenant identification signs is ,
permitted on the south side and five tenant
identification signs on the north side of the
building. I
b. Signs in this area must be attached to a plywood
panel with the maximum dimensions of 2' high by 24'
wide. Signs may not project beyond the dimensions
of the plywood panel. -.
Page 1 of 2
I
1
c. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name or
service offered. Logos, emblems and similar
identifying devices are not permitted.
d. Letters may not exceed 12" in height and shall be
be on a single line. Letters shall be uniform in
style, individual and have a white face.
e. Signs may be illuminated or non-illuminated.
' f. Existing signage in this area not in conformance
may be retained until the tenant leaves or wishes
to change the signage.
B. Free Standing Signs:
1 . Monument Sign: A single sided monument sign for
building identification may be placed in the south
yard between the building and the sidewalk. The top of
the sign may not exceed 4' in height. The dimensions
of the sign may not exceed 2' high by 10' wide. The
copy shall have a maximum height of 10" and be
' internally illuminated.
2 . Directory Sign: A single sided directory sign for
' tenant identification may be placed in the north yard
adjacent to the west entry. The top of the sign may
not exceed 6' in height. The dimensions of the sign
may not exceed 5' high by 3'10" wide. The copy shall
have a maximum height of 10" and may be
illuminated.
' C. General
1. No signage within the building visible to the exterior
' shall be allowed.
2. Temporary real estate signs which advertise sale or
' lease, temporary banners and permanent traffic
directional signs are permitted in accordance with
city codes.
3. A permit from the city must be obtained for all signs.
Page 2 of 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 29
AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL AMENDING THE SIGNAGE FOR THE CHANHASSEN
MEDICAL ARTS FACILITY LOCATED AT 470 WEST 78TH STREET.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item .
Emmings: Okay , clarify one thing for me . When they came in here we talked
about the little dirctory sign in back of the building and my recollection
is that no one had any trouble with that and that's been passed?
Krauss: That has .
Emmings: Okay . But I don't remember whether or not we voted on the '
monument sign on the front yard?
Krauss: That was denied . The expansion of the monument sign by 10 feet or II
whatever was to include a tenant space which was recommended for denial .
Emmings: And that was recommended for denial so if they have one , it will
just have the name of the building?
Krauss: It will be the sign that was originally approved, yes . '
Emmings: So we 're down just to looking at the band in the middle?
Krauss: Exactly .
Emmings: Okay . That helps me . Another thing I 'm a little confused about
is why is it back here? The City Council , we took action and the City
Council has taken action but yet it 's come back here and I 'm a little
confused about the procedure .
Krauss: Okay. The City Council could have of course acted on it '
unilaterally . I think there was some concern on their parts that while
this seemed to maybe making a lot of progress and while it seemed to be
consistent with a lot of the guidelines that you had laid down , that you
had never seen it and it was a completely different plan.
Emmings: This plan that we 're looking at now? Okay . Alright . This is
old business. It 's not a public hearing but we 've got at least two guys
out here that look like they might want to talk . Is there something you 'd
like to say to us because this would be an appropriate time to do it?
Bob Copeland: We don 't have much to say. You 've heard a lot about it .
We 're all getting tired of talking about it I guess but I just want to
clarify a couple things . First of all , it's a sign area . In other words , II
there will be lap siding, like the rest of the building, just in this area
and we won 't have a plywood panel that 's painted a burgandy color in here .
So there will just be the individual letters on whatever signs there be for II
our 3 tenants . That we would put in this area .
Emmings: And you 're only asking for there ever to be 3 signs in there?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 30
Bob Copeland: That 's right . And we 're asking for approval to put in 3
II
signs within this sign area . And the maximum height of the area is 4 feet
and I think it 's about 58 feet long . The covenants that we 've developed
with the staff have a maximum letter size of 16 inches if there are two . In
I other words , two lines like Chanhassen Dental . One line above another one .
The maximum size letter there is 16 inches .
I Emmings: What are the letters that are presently on the ends of the
building?
Bob Copeland: 10 inches . Business Health Services is 10 inches .
IChanhassen Medical Center is 10 inches . Goldstar Mortgage is 15 .
Emmings: And so any signs in the middle would be a maximum height of 16
IIinches if there are two lines . What if there's one line?
Bob Copeland: It could be up to 3 feet . And then we 've allowed for a
' provision in there would allow a logo to be added .
Emmings: And color in that area of the building and no letter?
IBob Copeland: There 'd be no restrictions on color . In this area .
Emmings: In Area C?
IIBob Copeland : Right .
' Erhart: Can I ask a question?
Emmings: Sure .
IErhart: The sign band on the two sides , what 's the height of that? You
said the letters were I believe 10 inches?
IBob Copeland: Here?
Erhart: No . Yeah , right there .
11 Bob Copeland: The band itself , the piece of plywood that the letters are
attached to is about 22 inches.
IErhart: Okay . Thanks .
Emmings: Anything else you want to tell us or does anybody else have any
' question of him go right ahead .
Ahrens: Are we just going to talk about it?
IIBob Copeland: If you have questions of me .
Ahrens: No.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 31 ,
Emmings: Yeah , I just wondered if anybody had any question of him right
now or if you had anything else you 'd like to tell us .
Bob Copeland: Not right now . II Brad Johnson: I can add one thing . You all kind of liked the Town Square
sign plan and in there we have I think 3 or 4 foot sign band that runs all
the way across the top of the building and gives the freedom to do logos . . . II
and all that sort of stuff . And we have maximum letter height , single
letter height of 18 inches . I think if it 's double lined , it 's a different
size . That 's how that was able to be done and it didn 't have the
restrictions . So you have the area that you put the sign in there . So
you 'd bring a sign in , they simple look well is the sign letter the right
height and does it fit that area , and that 's worked. This is an attempt to
duplicate what everbody said they liked . Liked the signage over in Town
Square .
Emmings: Well , be careful of that because there may be some people up here
who 'd like to see less signage on this building . When we talk about just
what people like .
Brad Johnson: I think he said that seemed to work over there: It wasn 't '
that they liked it . It was regulatable .
Emmings: Okay . Who wants to , let 's ask you what you think . It 's tough .
Ahrens: Well , we talked a lot last time about the importance of the
visual impact of this building . It 's the first building outside of the gas
station that you see coming into Chanhassen and I think it 's real important 11
that this building look nice . I mean we talked about this over and over
and over again . I think the monument sign is fine in front . I don't have I
any problem with the length of the sign or the names but I do have a
problem with the 4 foot color signs on the front of this building . I think
that if we accept this , we 're accepting a second best apperance on the
front of this building . I think it should be consistent with the other
bands . My comments are the same that they have been the last two times
we 've discussed this . I like the 2 foot height of the signs and I think
the letters should be similar and I think .
Emmings: Similar in size?
Ahrens: Similar in size and I don't think there should be colored logos on II
it . I think this is a very different building from Town Square. Those are
my comments .
Emmings: Okay . Jeff? i
Farmakes: I realize that this building has a long history here going back
to I think it was what , 1987 or something? From some of the earlier
discussions . It seems that we 've taken everything that's objectionable and II
put it into the Area C and I believe that the last proposal that we had was
a little bit more monogrammanic and now that a compromise has been made on II
the monument sign and brought up into that center area like we talked
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 32
I about , now all of a sudden colors , there 's no restriction on color . I have
a real problem with using commercial building for advertising and there 's
really no regulations as I understand it in our ordinances now for that .
If I had my druthers and if I could just sit here and say this is what I 'd
II like to see , it 'd be a major tenant sign only and no confusion between
retail , which is really what signage Area C is . This is a compromise
however and I still would like to see that signage lower impact . If it
' involves perhaps rethinking the color .restrictions , I just don 't think it
fits in with that building . And you come up with a situation where you 're
still allowing some identification but toning down the advertising aspect
of it .
' Emmings: Did you have any feelings about whether it ought to be 4 foot or
2 foot or size of letters?
IFarmakes: I think that right now a major objection is the backlit color
being that size . I don 't , layout wise I guess I could feel that we could
' make , or I could make some compromises on issues of logos but I would say
that the building would look best obviously by continuing the same type
style across all the way . But I guess I 'd be open to compromises on that .
II Ahrens: Is there really a possibility we could have an ear on the front of
this building? Or whatever that is? I don 't need any body parts on this
building . _
IIEmmings: No body parts .
II Farmakes: The point of what I 'm trying to say is that if the impact could
be lessen from the retail aspect of the building . And I think part of that
perhaps is continuing the type on or looking at a more monogrammic scheme
like the signs in Areas B and A and perhaps compromise on the size .
IIConrad: I think this is really fun . Well we 're getting back to this
subjective stuff that 's compromise and whatever . What I 'd like and what I
' think is clean is what is there right now . As you drive by , the
Business Health Service . The Orthodontist . The Goldstar Mortgage . The
Medical Center . Those pop . They pop off the board . They 're white against
I brown . They are very directional . They really work . They 're on a
professional building . Many don't like signage on a professional building .
I do but now it 's my personal standards coming into play . I like how it
looks right now . I like the consistency across there . So if I were to
' give any direction , I would just continue with what we already have in
terms of , I think I could sell tenants . Maybe not sell Tom but I could sell
a lot of tenants into how clean , how professional the building looks with
I the signage that 's up there right now. I really like it . It's only ,
I don 't know what the setback of the building is . It 's maybe 15 feet .
We're not talking about 100 foot setback like Town Square , and I like the
signage on Town Square . I like the action of the color . I like the
I difference . It 's entertaining . It draws you in. On a professional
building those are not my standards . On a professional building I 'd like
the cleanest and I work with a lot of professional clients . I like the
I cleanest . You can 't go by the building and not know that the medical
center is there right now. You can't go by the building and not know that
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 33 ,
the orthodontist or whatever is there . You can't . It 's really , it 's in
black and white . Therefore I feel real , you know but we 're in subjective II
never , never land . Absolutely I don't like to have different -signage
requirements for different ends of the building or different parts of the
building . That doesn 't make sense to me . It really doesn 't and maybe
we 're solving some problems but I want uniformity across here and if we
decide that everybody should have multi-colored stuff and it 's a 3 foot
band , I think everybody should have that right to do that . That 's not what II
I see for this building . I like the 2 foot band or whatever we 've got
established . It really works and that 's what I 'm most concerned with is
what works for the tenants in there . In my mind that really works . I 'm
not wild about the change in the middle . I want everybody to have signage ,
well I want the 7 signs or whatever . I just see some lack of uniformity
and lack of professionalism in the way we carry it across the building .
Emmings: Tim? I
Erhart: Question . What do you call the doctor 's that work at Goldstar
Mortgage? What do you call the doctor? Is it Dr . Workman?
Emmings: What?
Erhart : It 's not a medical building .
Emmings: Oh , professional building is what people have been saying . Not II
medical .
Erhart: Is the issue at hand here , what 's remaining to be decided is the
height of these signs? Is that what I 'm understanding?
Emmings: No.
Erhart : Or is this open?
Emmings: No . Now again, for clarification here Paul , right now under the II
agreement , under the signage package approved for that building already ,
what can they do in what is on here as Area C?
Krauss: They can have the one sign . '
Emmings: Right . For one business. Right. And it 's limited to the same
size as the other signs isn 't it? Okay . So this is not unlike the one we I
just got done with .
Erhart: Oh, I understand but the question here is , it appeared to me that
the Council decided everything except the height of the sign . Am I
misinterpretting that?
Krauss: Well , to the extent , I mean the Council . Let me see if I can
interpret this correctly and there 's some Council people here . Maybe they
can correct my interpretation but the Council did not formally act on this.
When they remanded it back to you though they pretty much indicated a
comfort level with the idea of 3 signs and I interpret that to say that
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 34
they had a comfort level with the introduction of color . And then it 's
being sent back to you .
Emmings: Okay , but it 's wide open in terms of .
Krauss: Sizing was clearly a concern and then you might have your own
concerns .
' Erhart: Okay , so it is wide open?
' Emmings: Are we right back there? Can you tell us Don?
Bob Copeland: That 's not what I heard .
' Erhart: The question is , are we just deciding on the height of the sign
here tonight or are we supposed to open it up and start from scratch? I
guess what do you guys want?
' Councilman Workman: When I came tonight I thought it was the height .
Emmings: Well if that 's all we 're going to talk about , I think that 's a
• waste of time .
Erhart: Well , I have an opinion about that .
IEmmings: I don 't know why they 'd want a little skimpy issue like that for
us to decide .
IIMayor Chmiel : Somebody 's got to decide it .
Emmings: Well that 's the Council 's job . I don 't know why , if this isn 't
' wide open , then we can do this real fast .
Erhart: I 'm suggesting we do . I 've got some opinions if it 's just that .
' You 're the chairman , decide .
Emmings: Go ahead . As far as I 'm concerned, it 's wide open I guess . I
I certainly intend to comment and so far we 've gone through the whole ,
everybody 's commented on the whole range of issues so you might as well
too .
I Erhart: Okay , fine . Well , just to repeat what I said last time . I like
the color . I like logos because when you drive and you 're looking for
something , they spend a lot of money to plant that logo in your mind and
I that 's what you 're looking for . And when you start seeing continuous , same
color of lettering across what 's going to be a very long building , it
becomes difficult to do that when you 're driving . And so in my opinion , I
like those logos . On the other hand , I 'll state that , can I ask? Whoever
Idrew the ear in , what in your mind is the height of the ear?
Bob Copeland: First of all , Miracle Ear is not a tenant in the building .
IAhrens : Theoretically it could be .
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 35 ,
Erhart: Yeah , in this representation , how high is that ear do you think? II
Bob Copeland: I don 't know right off hand . I 'd have to get out a scale but
a logo could be 4 feet high .
Erhart : No , I understand but , okay. Well if I were to look at that scale
I would say it looks like about 2 feet high .
Bob Copeland: Well it clearly isn't 4 feet .
Erhart: I guess in terms of the height , the height would seem to me for
consistency throughout the whole building , that you match the overall
height to the band widths which are you said 22 inches . So maybe it 's 24
inches and make that the maximum height of the signs in Area C . I think 22
or 24 inches . And also , I think the letters ought to be consistent when well
state that no letters can be , if- the other ones are 10 , which I thought you
said , then make the letters no bigger than 10 inches but of course you can
have two rows . To me that would be enough restriction to make it
consistent with what 's there . That 's my opinion .
Emmings: Okay . I think that there should not be a 4 foot high band. I
agree with basically everybody on that I guess . I think it should stay the II
22 to 24 inch height that they 've got already on the building . I can't
imagine seeing a 4 foot high logo on that building . I think it would look
terrible . When I asked what size the letters would be , they said they'd bell
16 inches if there 's two lines and up to 36 inches if there 's one line .
That doesn 't seem reasonable to me . So I guess I agree with Tim's stated
it last but the band ought to stay the same size . The letters ought to
stay the same size as the rest of the letters . They ought to be 10 inches .
I think this is a very different building than Town Square and if
businesses want to go in this building that need the logo and the color and II
of that , maybe they want to be somewhere else . Maybe they don 't want
to be in this building . Maybe they want to be in Town Square or something
like that . I don 't have any problem with there being 3 signs . That 's
all I 've got . Now , where is the action on this? Looking at the motion
that you 've put in our packet Paul , it states that the , it looks like we 're II
operating certainly on more than just sign height . There 's a lot of other
things included in this motion you 've given us . 1
Krauss: There 's other things in this motion but going back to the color
issue , that 's conspicuous by it 's absence . I did interpret the Council to
be saying , without a formal motion, that most of those that commented were
comfortable with color .
Emmings: Oh! But they haven't taken action and said there will be color II
in Area C?
Krauss: I don 't recall it coming down that way. Unfortunately we're II trying to expedite this thing quickly so we don't have Minutes .
Emmings: And the directory sign and the monument sign, that's a totally
separate issue? That 's not any part of this motion. Have they already 1
acted on that?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 36
Krauss: No , they didn 't but basically everybody was in concurrence and
that would be written into the covenants allowing that 6 inch addition to
the back sign and keeping the monument the way it was originally approved .
Emmings: Should there be action on that? It came before us and we
discussed it . I think we already passed a motion .
' Krauss: You already did do that , yes .
Emmings: So that 's kind of riding along parallel then?
' Krauss: Right .
Emmings: Okay . Well , are there any other comments on this issue or does
somebody want to make a motion?
Erhart: Is everybody comfortable with essentially 2 , 3 and 4 as is? There
wasn 't any real comments on that .
Conrad: I don 't find that 2 . I 'd prefer to keep the height less than 4
feet . The band .
' Erhart : Well I 'll do that in 1 .
I Conrad: But you have to allow enough space to put the name and I 'm not
sure that 12 feet .
I Krauss: If I could . We just divided the area into thirds figuring that no
sign should be bigger than one third the space .
Farmakes: But the other difficulty of the height is that if actually the
II type is in the logo , pre-determining the size of that type by how high the
logo is . The type can be , what is it 10 inches?
' Emmings : Yeah .
Farmakes: If it 's smaller than that in the logo and it 's got a lot on top
' of it , it may not get to that height .
Bob Copeland: Can I say something?
' Emmings: You go right ahead .
Bob Copeland: Okay , first of all 12 times 3 is 36 feet . We 've got 58 and
' your point is .
Ahrens: Allowing for space inbetween.
' Bob Copeland: We 're going to allow for space inbetween . I mean I think
you can grant us a little judgment on this thing . I mean we 're not going
to put one sign on top of another . I mean goodness . The 12 feet is not
I enough . We could not put Business Health Services or Chanhassen Medical '
Center in that center area in 12 feet . Can't be done . Either having one
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 37
above another . You know two lines or single lined . We wouldn 't be able to
do it . If we come in with a tenant that 's got a name like that , there 's no II
room for them. So I would like to suggest to you that you 're allowing 3
tenant signs and that you don 't need to worry about the width of the sign .
Now you 've expressed concern about the height and we feel we 've been
compromising right along on this thing and we 'll compromise some more and
we 'll restrict the height of the letters but I think the color is not an
issue , as far as I 'm concerned right now . What I heard the Council do is
they approved the concept and one of the Councilmen mentioned what about
color and the motion was made that color could be , that color would not be
an issue . And it was specifically addressed and the motion was approved . II
Emmings : Well we can make it an issue and they can ignore us . You know
they 'll do what they will .
Bob Copeland: Sure . That 's fine . But there was a lot of discussion
about what was or wasn 't discussed . What we 're willing to do is , it does
say that a letter , a single letter could be 3 feet high . We aren't going II
to have a single letter that 's 3 feet high . That 's just too high . We _
agree with you .
Emmings: Then why do you want the possibility? I
Bob Copeland: We 're backing off that . Alright?
Emmings: Alright .
Bob Copeland: We just think there 's too much restriction overall on the
whole building but that 's not , that 's for you people to determine that . So
we just want the freedom to do whatever we could do within the 4 foot sign
area . But we 'll restrict it further and we 'll make the height of an
individual letter 16 inches. So even if we have a single line , those
letters cannot be higher than 16 inches .
Erhart: Can you tell me what the length of the Chanhassen Medical Center . II
sign is?
Bob Copeland: Not exactly but I can tell you it's around 22-23 feet. '
Ahrens: And the height of those letters is what?
Bob Copeland: 10 inches.
Emmings: Tim, you can see from the number , the windows look like they 're
all even spacing and it covers 3 windows and there's 7 windows in Area C so
it'd be almost half .
Brad Johnson: Each window is 10 feet .
Emmings: Yeah, so you get an idea from the windows .
Bob Copeland: Center line of window to center line of window? So let 's
back off that 3 foot individual letter height . We 'll change that .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
1 April 17 , 1991 - Page 38
Emmings: I think a motion ought to , have you had a chance to say what you
want?
Bob Copeland: Yes I have .
IEmmings: I don 't want to cut you off . I think a motion ought to address
letter style . Whether or not they 're consistent with what 's on the
I building . It ought to address the height , the maximum height of the
letters . The height of the sign band itself and the number of signs on the
band . Unless you don 't care about the number of signs on the band because
if it gets long they 'll just lose their ability to put anymore on . Okay .
Conrad: Boy , it 's tough for us to get involved in some of these issues .
It 's so subjective .
Emmings: But so what?
Ahrens : That 's what we have to do .
Emmings: They 're asking us to do it .
I Conrad: Well we 've got to do it but again , we don 't have to do more than
we have to do . In other words , we can give some minimal guidance here . We
don 't have to you know , talking about color . We don 't have anything to
' guide us on color standards . Should they be multi-colored? Single
colored? I know what I like and I 'd prefer to see it exactly the way it is
right now but I don't know that I feel comfortable imposing a color
Istandard on that .
Emmings: Let me tell you why .
I Conrad: Because we haven 't thought about that for the city . You know it 's
just sort of like we 're making something up.
' Emmings: No . Let me tell you why it doesn 't bother me at all on this one .
These folks have a sign package for their building . They have come in and
said we want to change that . I don 't feel at all uncomfortable saying
' fine . If you want to change what you 've already got, we 're going to impose
conditions on that change and because we don 't have an ordinance that
addresses these things , we have no choice but to resort to our subjective
feelings about it . I don 't see any problem with being upfront about that .
I I think our ordinance is inadequate but we don't need it here . If they 're
coming in fresh , then I think we 've got a harder problem . But here it
doesn 't bother me at all . Because we can just say to them , take what you
' got and go away . We 're going to leave it the way it is .
Conrad: Okay , and what they 've got is a right to put logos on?
IEmmings: No .
Ahrens: No . That 's not the way the original sign plan was at all .
IEmmings: We didn 't approve any logos for that building .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 39
Bob Copeland: We can put a logo in . If it 's within the sign band .
Conrad: If it 's within the sign band, they can do that . I would have to
believe they could do that .
Emmings: Well maybe . If they did , it was an oversight because we only
talked about putting words on there .
Ahrens: Yeah , we never discussed that . '
Conrad: If they want to put in colors , I believe they could do that .
Erhart: Well they did .
Krauss : They did and that was consistent . '
Conrad: So in my mind those things are their rights right now . The logos
and the colors .
Emmings: Fine . Then I 'm willing to say , then go do it .
Erhart: There is a restriction on the band right now, is there not? 1
Conrad: Number of signs and height . We have , logically we have some
control over the height of this . I would have liked to have control over , I
again . I said it before but I really , what signage is there is really
clean and professional and I wish that would be carried through . That 's my
wish . I just don 't know that I can , at this point in time , iMpose my wish .
Emmings: If you 're uncomfortable imposing your wish , then we should leave
it with what they 're got . And that 's fine with me because they 're here for
two reasons as I see it Ladd . One is they don 't have enough signs for the II
number of tenants they have because the use of the building has changed a
little bit . The second one is , American Family wants to put their regular
sign up there that doesn't fit. It can't fit so those are the two things I
that bring them in here . They really want to change the package because
the use of the building has changed and because they 've got an interested
tenant who wants a specific sign . And I feel no conpunction whatever to
tailor , to go back and change the sign package for a particular tenant . I
don 't think that 's , I feel no need to do that whatever . If they can 't fit
it in with what they 've got , I 'm sorry. But what 's up there now doesn 't
bother me at all . I think it looks good and I wish they'd just carry
through with what 's there . Like you . I agree with that.
•
Conrad: I just want to make sure we know what we should control and have
the right to control .
Emmings: We need to rework the sign ordinance .
Conrad: The sign ordinance is a pain in the neck. They really are . Even
a new one . Pain in the neck . Okay , Tim you were going to make a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 40
I Erhart : Let me give it a shot here . I 'll move that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Amendment #88-17 to amend the
signage plan for the Chanhassen Medical Arts building subject to the
following conditions: Number 1 , maximum of 3 signs in Area C . Number 2 ,
I that the sign , maximum total sign height would not exceed 24 inches with no
individual letters higher than 10 inches . 2 , that the sign length be no
more than , I 'm going to take a shot at 24 inches . I 'll make 24 feet per
I sign . I think there is , and the reason I put that in there because I think
there is a maximum that you want these things spread out . 3 as is . 4 as
is . 5 . That colored signs and logos will be permitted . That 's it . And
I the reason I said the 24 feet , I just can't imagine one whole sign going
across the whole thing . If you 've got a sign on the right that 's about 24
feet . Why did we have 12 feet?
I Conrad: They should do what makes sense for the business and they
shouldn 't do anything that 's dumb . And they won 't .
' Emmings: So colored signs and logos , as long as they fit within the 24
inch sign band , they can have it .
Erhart: Yep .
' Conrad: Motion 's been moved .
IEmmings : Is there a second? It hasn 't been seconded .
Conrad: Another motion? -
' Emmings: No , I 'm going to second it , for discussion . We 've already
discussed it some . It 's got most of what I 'm interested in and the only
thing that hangs me up is the colored sign and the logos and I have been
I against those but when I think about it , the only trouble is then you get
the white and the white and then color in the middle and I 'm not sure
that 's good .
IAhrens: I won 't go along with that . No way. I think we have the absolute
right to say what goes on the front of these buildings . Subjective as it
I is . We 're going to live with the signs on those buildings for a long , long
time .
Erhart: I 'm trying to understand what you would propose like the American
IFamily have the logo but it be white? Is that what you 're saying?
Ahrens: Yeah.
IConrad: It 'd say American Family . It would not be the logo type .
Farmakes: Wasn 't that how it was proposed on the monument sign? It was
Imore monogrammic?
Ahrens: Yes . We 've already said that when Goldstar Mortgage moves out
Ithat that sign will change to a black and white sign . Right?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 41
Brad Johnson: No . We said we 'd agree to that if you 'd agree to this .
Emmings: Well , if they move out I think the sign will come down . I don 't
think they 'll keep it up.
Ahrens: No but I mean we said that we objected to the look of the Goldstar
Mortgage sign . This big gold sign in the front of the building . I think
everybody said it didn 't look great . '
Emmings: Well I think they 've said that too . Yeah , they 've agreed with
that .
Ahrens: Why would we go along with colored signs in the middle of the
building? I just don 't understand that . I don't ever want to leave it
open that there could be an ear on the front of the building . I know
they 're not a tenant but you know and I 'm being somewhat facetious but I
don 't ever want to leave that possibility open . I mean this is supposed to
be a nice , classy looking building . It 's not supposed to be Town Square or
if somebody comes in and they 're going to do finger nails , they put a big
finger up there . Well you know , it 's ridiculous but it could happen and if
there 's no control at all .
Erhart: I guess in my motion I 'm thinking that really , if they want to put II
an ear , replace Chanhassen Medical Center with an ear to me , this pattern
would be ultimately be consistent through the whole building . I don 't have I
this vision for these white consistent signs at all .
Ahrens: I guess that 's what we originally approved and I like that idea .
And I can go along with the 3 signs if they 're consistent but I cannot go
along with the logos and the colored signs . . .
Brad Johnson: I 've just got to say something for the record . You did not II
approve the signs . You approved a band .
Ahrens: Yeah , that 's what I meant . Excuse me . '
Brad Johnson: And no letters were approved by you . All you said is we
could have signs . Whoever did the first sign selected, happen to select
white letters . ,
Emmings: He did a good job .
Brad Johnson: And we happened to approve . Whoever selected the second ,
sign did white letters . We approved . And we're not sure that was the
right thing to do number one because it made it too consistent and we 're I
dealing with the issue at the present time . Okay and when you talk about
sign ordinances , there are people . Miracle Ear for example has spent
probably only 50 million dollars advertising the ear and when they come
into a building and they 're professional . You know the hearing business ,
they want their logo on the building .
Ahrens: We get that argument all the time from.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 42
' Brad Johnson: Who 's we?
Ahrens: The Planning Commission . That fast food restaurants , they have to
have their , they have to have golden arches or whatever it is they have to
have . That 's not true .
Brad Johnson: Well see , my problem with this and I 'm sitting through these
' meetings for one purpose . To see if you 're pro business or anti business
and whether we should develop in this city or not . Okay? And what I hear
from this Planning Commission is a concern of mine and I hear control . We
didn 't have this problem in Town Square . Okay? We don 't have the problem
in any other buildings we 've ever built in this particular community
because you 've always just allowed us to say the letters should be this .
We allow this and give us .
IEmmings: We don 't have a problem with Town Square either Brad .
I Brad Johnson: I 'm talking , and this is in the CB district . You guys have
got to realize , this is not a business park . This is a CBD district and
that 's the principle you have to go by and these are prevented things .
I Emmings: It isn 't permitted . What 's permitted on this building is what's
been approved for the building . Don 't talk to me about our sign ordinance
which we 'll all admit is inadequate .
IIBrad Johnson : I think it 's adequate but .
' Emmings: But what 's permitted for this building is what was . . .
Brad Johnson: Yeah , and our issue which will ultimately if this is not
passed , sooner or later we 're going to go back to the original discussions
' on this building and then we 're going to have to go through the whole
process one more time because our contention is that we were railroaded
into the current situation . Okay? And that 's where we stand .
IIAhrens: That 's all the comments I have .
Emmings: Okay . Does anyone else have any more discussion on the motion
Ithat 's on the floor? Otherwise I 'll call the question.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
I approval of Site Plan Amendment #88-17 to amend the signage plan for the
Chanhassen Medical Arts/Ridgeview Medical Arts Building subject to the
following conditions:
I1 . There will be a maximum of three signs in Area C .
2 . The maximum total sign height will not exceed 24 inches with no
' individual letters higher than 10 inches .
3. The sign length in Area C will be no more than at 24 feet per sign .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 43
I
4 . The sign covenants shall be revised to prohibit temporary signage , I
either wall mounted or ground mounted , excepting temporary lease signs
for which criteria will be established by staff .
5 . The sign covenants shall be revised to include a statement that all
111
signage must be approved and permitted by the City .
6 . Colored signs and logos will be permitted . u
Erhart voted in favor and the rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote
of 1 to 4 .
Emmings: Another motion? I
Conrad: I make a motion that Planning Commission recommends approval of I
Site Plan Amendment #88-17 to amend the signage plan for the Chanhassen
Medical Arts/Ridgeview Medical Arts Building with the following conditions:
There will be 3 additional signs allowed . That the total sign band height ,
be 24 inches . That the maximum size of the letters be 10 inches .
Emmings: 'That 's it?
Conrad: I 'm done . II
Emmings : What about , nothing on . II
Erhart: None of the other conditions?
Conrad: With condition 3 and 4 of the staff report .
I
Erhart: Okay , I 'll second that .
Krauss: Would it be impertinent to ask for a clarification? II
Emmings: Yes . Since you 're Planning Director and Zoning Director , you can I
go ahead .
Krauss: I can be impertinent . Does this allow color?
Conrad: I 'm not addressing that . II
Krauss: Okay . And logos are also not addressed?
I
Conrad: That 's it because I don 't have a clue how to address them .
Krauss: Is the logo subjected to the sign band height? Presumably it I
would be .
Conrad: Right . I
Emmings: Everything 's got to be 'within the sign band. When you say a
maximum of 3 signs , you mean between the two porticos in what 's being II described as Area C?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 44
' Conrad: A maximum of three signs in Area C . Ask for a second .
Erhart : I seconded it .
' Emmings: You got one . Want two seconds?
Erhart: It wasn 't that good .
Emmings: Alright , so what do you see them . Let 's go over it again .
You 're thinking on color and logos , you 're just simply not taking any
• position on it?
' Conrad: I 'm saying I 'm going to control it through the sign band which is
2 feet in height . And I basically , I do not recall that we ever addressed
logos or white in the original deal . I think we could possibly get back
involved with that issue . I guess I 'm just ignoring it .
IEmmings: Okay . Any other discussion?
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Amendment l#88-17 to amend the signage plan for the
I Chanhassen Medical Arts/Ridgeview Medical Arts Building subject to the
following conditions:
' 1 . There will be a maximum of three signs in Area C .
2 . The maximum total sign height will not exceed 24 inches with no
' individual letters higher than 10 inches .
3 . The sign covenants shall be revised to prohibit temporary signage ,
either wall mounted or ground mounted , excepting temporary lease signs
for which criteria will be established by staff .
4 . The sign covenants shall be revised to include a statement that all
' signage must be approved and permitted by the City .
All voted in favor except Ahrens and Farmakes who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
' Emmings: Those who are opposed to the motion I think should state whateve
they want to in terms of their reasons. I guess go ahead.
IAhrens: I 've already said .
' Emmings: Do it one more time just so.
Ahrens: I cannot go along with , I don 't think we should be approving
colored signs or logos for that band. That was not what I envisioned at
Iall that we approved before .
Farmakes: The intent of my objection is not to be opposed to business or
I business owners . I feel that this building is sort of in a twilight zone
of purpose . If it is a professional building , it 's different than a Town
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 45
Square . I think that the signage should be consistent . Should be low
impact . If you put color into something , you give it impact . If you back 1
light it , you give it impact . And the purpose of signage area C is to .
advertise . It 's not to identify. It 's to advertise and that 's great in a
retail area but there is no restriction in a business area . If you get a II
building that 's 3 or 4 stories high , each and every doctor or each and
every lawyer or each and every insurance agency can put a sign out , and if
you get 200 or 300 tenants , you 've got a pretty silly looking development .
I realize that there 's a lot of additional baggage with this thing , as I
said before but I would rather see it the way it is now than make one third III
of it a retail area.
Emmings: Alright . When does this go to the City Council?
Krauss: That would be 2 weeks from Monday .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meetings dated March 20 , 1991 and April 3, 1991 as presented . '
OPEN DISCUSSION:
• PRESENTATION/SLIDE SHOW ON BLUFF CREEK BY PERRY DEAN AND ERIC ROTH. ,
Krauss: We have two gentlemen waiting to give us a report . If I could
give a brief introduction. I think you 'll find this quite interesting.
Mr . Dean and Mr . Roth came to talk to Todd Hoffman and myself about
preservation of Bluff Creek as an environmental , sensitive environmental
area . They grew up in this area . Have been hiking it for years and are
intimately familiar with it and basically have begun naturalists with good II
knowledge of this area . I think it 's very timely . I discussed with them
some of the initiatives proposed in the Comprehensive Plan . Vis a vis
preservation of Bluff Creek . Also with the bluff line ordinances that
we 've been discussing and several other environmental issues that we 've
been looking at . Their goal is for this to be locked up in some sort of
permanent protective state . Either publically or privately and to I think
make it somewhat accessible or knowable to those who want to experience it .
They 'd like to pursue this matter . We 're going to have them give a similar
presentation to the Park Board. They do have a slide show as I understand
of the corridor and we 've been talking to them about having them lead a
walking tour of the creek . Hopefully before the bugs come out which I
think would be a great experience for all those who can join and we 'll open
that up to interested people on the Park Board , City Council and Planning '
Commission. And with that , I 'd like to pass the meeting over .
Perry Dean and Eric Roth gave a slide presentation showing the history and
present state of the lower valley bed of Bluff Creek stretching roughly a
mile and a half long from Pioneer Trail td TH 101 . They demonstrated it 's
unique qualities which they feel need to be preserved from development ,
either privately or publically , for future generations being it 's one of
the last remenants of the "Big Woods" .
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1991
' Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'll so move approval of Contract Amendment #1 for
Audubon Road South, Project 89-18.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll second that . Any discussion?.
Councilwoman Dimler: I want to thank Mr. Harrison for coming in and explaining
that so well to us.
Councilman Wing: Then I guess I would like to thank the Mayor for asking the
question because there's. . .that I don't fully understand.
' Resolution #91-28: Councilman Wing moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve
Contract Amendment #1 with HNTB for the Audubon Road Improvement Project 89-18
establishing a revised ceiling of $65,600.00. All voted in favor and the motion
' carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SIGNAGE FOR THE CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS
' BUILDING, 470 WEST 78TH STREET, ROBERT COPELAND.
Paul Krauss: This is the second time in the past year I suppose that you've had
' some overview of signage on this building. Last year there was a clarification
on how many tenant signs were to be allowed and it was, as I recall, 5 per side.
There was also a monument sign that had been approved with the original proposal .
but not yet built . A few months ago the applicant came to us with a proposal to
-' enlarge that monument sign such that it could accommodate another tenant space.
Also there was a minor change, an increase in size in a directory sign around
the back of the building. As staff we had some concerns about this for several
' reasons. We believed it violated the original intent of the plan that had been
approved. We also had a concern that monument signage really should be building
oriented or site oriented and not have tenant spaces. We took that concern to
the Planning Commission. They echoed some of our sentiments and recommended
denial of the original plan. The Planning Commission though did outline some
suggestions for a compromise and it wasn't really well developed at the Planning
Commission meeting but the compromise was something along the lines that the
' monument sign would remain in it's current size without any tenant signage and
that there would be additional signage bands placed on the building to
accommodate 1 or 2 additional tenants. I since had an opportunity to sit down
' with the applicants along with the City Manager to discuss that compromise
further and the plan that you have tonight is an outgrowth of that. Basically
what it proposes to do is to exchange the middle sign band that has that
temporary, I think it's Chanhassen Dental with a telephone number on it for 3
' tenant sign bands. The differences in these sign bands is that they would go
from 2 feet to 4 feet in height and under covenants that have been provided,
they would allow logos and color. All the rest of the signage on the building
' would be required to be white. The one exception is the Goldstar Mortgage sign
which is obviously already gold but the covenants that have been drafted would
require that that be changed to white face consistent with the rest of the
' building as soon as that tenant changes and that's fairly common practice when
you adopt covenants. There's a lot of money spent on these things and as long
as you achieve over time what you're trying to, that's pretty common. Staff
indicated that we were fairly comfortable with the concept. We proposed some
changes to the covenants themselves. We believe that there should be a
prohibition against the trailer mounted temporary signs and signs in the
I 15
I
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1991 1
window. The applicant did ask if the covenants could allow temporary leasing
signs. We thought that was reasonable. I'm sure that kind of a compromise can
easily be worked out . Before writing this up for the City Council however, we
had our Planning Commission meeting last week and I informally ran this
compromised proposal in front of them. They agreed that the concept was one
that they supported but they had some different opinions about the colored
signage and the use of larger sign panels in the middle than had been previously
used on the building. They did not have an opportunity to take an official
position. It was not an official action item for them. What we've done is
we've written this up for the City Council basically with two alternative
options for you to consider. One would be approval of the sign package as
proposed with a couple of modifications to the covenants raised by staff. The
other would basically, you'd give your feedback to the Planning Commission and
have this sent back to them for a detailed review and possibly approval. It's
possible that the Planning Commission could be authorized to finally approve
this or they could come back through the process again for your final approval. •
At this point I'm finding it rather difficult to give you detailed
recommendations on what to propose. We're working outside of the sign ordinance
on this one. This was a condition that was attached to the site plan approval
so it's really that thing that takes precedence and not the sign ordinance which
has obvious problems that we've all talked about numerous times. Personally
I have some preferences with that but that's what they devolve into. I mean
it 's tough to make a professional judgment on what looks good, what doesn't look
good and I would really rather defer those kinds of determinations up to you or
over to the Planning Commission or both of you. Planning judgments are not
often times subjective. I like to think that there's some professional judgment
behind them and this is getting into an area where it's a little more difficult
to make that so basically I'd like to defer this subjective analysis. . . I'm '
carrying forward the concerns of the Planning Commission but at this point those
are unofficial and I don't have Minutes of that meeting. I can just relate what
was spoken. With that I'll turn it back over to you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay Paul. Thank you. Any discussion from Council?
Councilman Mason: Why the need to, the middle I believe it's signage area C. '
The one in the middle that is proposed that logos will be allowed. Why does
that have to go from 2 to 4 feet?
Paul Krauss: I guess Councilman Mason I'd like to defer that to the applicant ,
Bob Copeland who's here tonight.
Bob Copeland: I'm Bob Copeland. I'm one of the owners of the building and your '
question was, why the need for the extra height there? If you can see on the
drawing here, what we have currently approved is a sign panel that's about 2
feet high which allows one line of letters only. And we want to have the
ability to have two lines of letters. In other words, Chanhassen Dental for
example would be Chanhassen over the word Dental. And then this also allows for
various logos which won't fit on a 2 foot high sign. ,
Councilman Wing: But if we were to pick on American Family, their envelopes
have that logo in a one inch size and I could recognize it easily. So now
expand that envelope out to 2 feet and that's not a small logo. I don't care,
I don't understand what you're saying here.
16 1
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1991
Bob Copeland: Well, let me try it again. We've got, this is a drawing of the
existing situation. This is the area that we're talking about. The center.
Currently there is a 2 foot high by 24 feet wide sign panel that we can put a
sign within. That allows for one row of letters.
Councilman Wing: Or two rows of letters at half the size.
Bob Copeland: Well, practically the letters would be too small to make it worth
while. So the idea is that , plus most logos would not fit .
Councilman Mason: You can make a logo fit any size you want it to. I mean I
think Dick's point is well taken. I mean there are logos an inch high. I mean
I see your point about visibility. Don't get me wrong there but I don't think
you can state that a logo won't fit on that.
, Bob Copeland: Well, it depends on the logo. And what we want to do is have
some flexibility here and so we aren't going to use any more than required. We
want the ability to have three tenant names here and their logos and have two
lines, if necessary, if that tenant 's name and logo requires it. We're still
way under the 15% allowed. We were at , with the previous situation we were at
like 29% and we go up to about 53% of the allowed. So even if we filled up the
whole 4 feet by 58 feet , which we aren't going to fill it all. Even if we did
fill it all up, we would still be less than 60% of the allowed 50% of the wall
area.
Mayor Chmiel: Bob, what is the distance between your upper story windows and
your lower story windows?
Bob Copeland: I don't know what it is right off hand but it's approximately,
there's a little panel above the lower windows and from the top of that panel to
the bottom of this window is approximately 6 feet.
Councilman Mason: It says it's 10 inches on either side of the 4 foot sign so
what is it?
Mayor Chmiel: With what you're showing there, are you showing that according to
scale?
Bob Copeland: This is scale. What we have found is that, when we started the
project that a couple things turned out to be a little different than we had in
mind. One of them is that our average tenant is smaller than we had anticipated
so we have more tenants. And secondly, due to the marketplace or whatever,
these tenants are more interested in signage than we had anticipated. I think
that it's. . .tenants want signs. And in order to get tenants in the building, we
need more signage. That's all there is to it. And we think that this center
area is available and this was something that the Planning Commission suggested
informally that we look at using to accommodate the needs of the tenants.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, in one part of the memo that we have here, it indicated
that they objected to the increased size from 2 to 4 feet wide of the middle
sign panels. The Commission.
17
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1991 1
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, that's accurate but that 's a reflection of comments
that they were making which were all over the board and that's my interpretation
of what they were saying. There was no official action on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright . I
Councilwoman Dimler: I had a question of Bob, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Bob, would you tell me how many more possible tenants you
could have that would want a sign? How much space you have available?
Bob Copeland: Well, right now today there are two spaces vacant. So if each of
those two tenants wanted signage, then we would have 3 here. We would have
Chanhassen Dental. They're already in but don't have a permanent sign. Then we
would have one sign for each of the two remaining tenants.
Councilwoman Dimler: And they'd all be in the middle section there? I
Bob Copeland: Those three would be in that middle section.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then you would be filled to capacity?
Bob Copeland: Then we'd be 100: full. '
Mayor Chmiel: With those three you wouldn't have any other vacancies?
Bob Copeland: True. i
Councilman Mason: There'd never be more than three logos up there at one time?
Bob Copeland: Not if you adopt what is in the sign covenants.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question on the back of the building too. Are
you asking for the same thing on the back?
Bob Copeland: We're not asking for any change on the back of the building with
the exception of, I think our directory sign that we submitted is 6 inches
higher than what was previously approved and I don't know, I don't want to speak
for Paul but I think they're willing to say that's fine.
Paul Krauss: Yes, that was supported by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Mason: I guess I would hate, we have this staff recommendation A
that we can go ahead and approve it or I'd just as soon this went back to the
Planning Commission I think. I have some feelings about it but I think they've
been behind this the whole way and I think they should have some more input on
it.
Councilman Wing: Mayor, could I attempt a new guy motion because I've been
sitting through the Planning Commission meetings and with due respect to Mr.
Copeland, his rights and the business rights and the City's rights, I'd like to
18
' City Council Meeting - April 8, 1991
' move recommendation of B which would allow, which would approve their revised
signage but return it to the Planning Commission. But I would like to add to
that . That the Council make special note that that was a landmark gateway
building. The building has a very narrow street setback. . Somewhat negating
' high visibility needs and the Council requests careful review of the 4 foot sign
request prior to approval. And I'd be happy to move with whatever they decide
at that time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Just for clarification. Do you want it to come back to
Council for final approval?
' Councilman Wing: In my own opinion, no. I think it's gone so far now, I think
they could deal with it. They need direction. We're saying we are approving
this. The only debate is carefully look at this building before you allow the 4
' feet. That's all. The only restriction might be that they didn't go along with
the 4 foot .
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, can I just throw something in? I would like the Planning
Commission to do this and I go along with staff recommendation B. I would still
think we should want to see what the finalized thought is and have it come back
to Council.
' Councilman Wing: Could I leave that motion intact then with my comments about
the gateway building, . . .narrow setback. Requesting a review of the 4 foot
request and that their final findings come to Council?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and second. Any further discussion?
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Just a point of clarification. I know the timing is important
' for the applicant. I think that the process that Paul has laid out narrowly
sets forth the signage package, etc. . Going back to the Planning Commission,
staff would kind of see that as, so they would be working out the details. In
your motion is there a way in which that action could become I guess the rule
you might say for this applicant and the notification back to Council simply be
just that. More of a notification rather than again one more approval level.
We're going to add about a •month to this is what I'm afraid of.
Bob Copeland: If your comments on our behalf, I appreciate that but we'd just
as soon not have the Planning Commission _have the final say. Even if it means a
delay.
Don Ashworth: Alright. So a month?
Bob Copeland: It's not good but we don't want the Commission to have the final
say.
' 19
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1991 1
Mayor Chmiel: One of the additional things too and I like the other portion of
it as well. To prohibit window and exterior ground mounted temporary signage.
I think that too should probably be entailed with that particular motion. What
I looked at was what Paul had in here to prohibit window and exterior ground
mounted temporary signage. That would be filed and permanently recorded against
the property. We don't need that but I think if we had that.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, two things. First in the interest of expediting this,
if Mr. Copeland is available, we'll roll this over to next week's Planning
Commission meeting. I mean everybody's familiar with this. It's not that
difficult to get it back on.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, why don't we do that.
Paul Krauss: The second thing is, besides the size of the sign, the other thing
the Planning Commission talked about was the introduction of color in the middle
here. If the City Council had any direction to the Planning Commission on your
sense of that, that might also be useful.
Councilman Wing: If we're approving the request and the request has color on
this one. And Paul, this is in due respect to the sign ordinance which exists
but maybe doesn't really exist yet so I don't think we can draw those lines at
this point.
Councilwoman Dimler: My comments on logos. I think that they should be allowed
because they do identify a business and we don't want to stop anyone from doing
business in this town. As far as how big they have to be, I'm not sure if I
agree with the 4 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Would you accept that f riendly
amendment to prohibit window and exterior ground mounted temporary signage?
Councilman Wing: Absolutely.
Mayor Chmiel: Would the second, friendly amendment? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Uh-huh.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ,
Councilman Mason: Could I hear the motion just one more time?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: The motion is to take staff recommendation B with concern for
the building's gateway position and appearance, it's narrow setback and a
careful review of the 4 foot sign prior to approval. And we added the friendly
amendment to prohibit window and exterior ground mounted temporary signage.
Councilman Mason: Thank you.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the revised
signage concept for the Medical Arts Building as outlined in the attached
20 '
City Council Meeting - April 8, 1991
11 documents with concern for the building's gateway position and appearance, it's
narrow setback and a careful review of the 4 foot sign prior to approval. Also,
subject to modifications of the covenants to prohibit window and exterior ground
mounted temporary signage. All voted in favor with Councilman Workman
abstaining and the motion carried.
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO WEST 79TH STREET EAST OF HIGHWAY
' 101; CALL PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 91-8.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. In your packets you have a
' feasibility study report which is completed for improvements to 79th Street east
of Great Plains Blvd. . The improvements include a bituminous overlay, concrete
curb and gutter, which will improve the street's serviceability and extend it's
life. The drainage improvements consistent with storm sewer. Street lighting
' and also landscaping along the north and south boulevard areas. The estimated
total project cost is $75,353.00. And from an engineering standpoint the
project is considered feasible. The project cost is proposed to be financed
' through special assessments to benefitting properties. Those benefitting
properties are all of Lot 2 and portions of Lot 1 and 3 of the proposed Gateway
First Addition. Now the method for the assessment is based on a front foot
cost . For the street improvement that turns out to be $177.39 per front foot
and the appropriate storm sewer benefit has been prorated between Lots 2 and 3
and the associated costs on that are $150.48 per front foot. So the total
project cost assessments are as follows: Lot 1, $13,911.11; Lot 2, $39,822.44;
' and Lot 3, $21,619.45. At this time I request that the Council receive this
feasibilty report and call a public hearing for the April 22nd City Council
meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone wishing to address that?
Councilman Mason: Will there be someone here from Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings
that night?
Charles Folch: I believe Scott Harri in fact was going to try and be here
tonight but he will be there on the 22nd.
Councilman Mason: People are going to laugh but I would like to know how come
' they always do these things and they don't run them back to back? There's
always the blank paper. It 's a minor issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Half a tree.
' Councilman Mason: That's right. Every little bit. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion to accept the feasibility study to
improvements for West 79th Street, Project 91-8 and to call a public hearing.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
r
21
I