The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Chan Medical Arts Bldg signage I • CITY OF _._- CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Actk by Ca: n's-to MEMORANDUM ; :.L=- , Pr TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager re _c FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director [h'c S DATE: April 4, 1991 1 r ' SUBJ: Chanhassen Medical Arts Building Signage � � 11 The applicants made a request to revise the sign package for the Medical Arts Building to expand the size of a ground mounted 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 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 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required, as a condition of site plan approval, to get a sign plan package approved by the Planning Commission, which superseded the limitations of the sign ordinance.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 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 general. We therefore opposed the requests as they went before the Planning Commission on March 20th. 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 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 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. After this, there would be no more signage allowed on the building and distribution of signage to I I I 1 Medical Arts Building Signage ' April 4, 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 be 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 1 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 1 with the property so that they are part of the permanent record pertaining to this building. I U Medical Arts Building Signage April 4, 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - A Staff recommends that the City Council approves amendments to Site ' Plan #88-17 for sign plan amendments for the Medical Arts Building subject to modifications of the covenants to prohibit window and exterior ground mounted temporary signage and that the covenants be filed and permanently recorded against the property. I STAFF RECOMMENDATION - B Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised signage 1 concept for the Medical Arts Building as outlined in attached documents. The proposal is to be returned to the Planning Commission for final review and approval. ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Signage covenants for building. ' 2. Planning Commission minutes dated March 20, 1991. 3. Staff report dated March 20, 1991. 4. Revised plans. 11 I I i 1 �-Z4 ! i RIDGEVIEA MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA EXTERIOR SIGNAGE CRITERIA Tenant signage at the building exterior shall be allowed as outlined: A. Signage Area 'A' - Tenant signage shall consist of tenant identification only. Copy is restricted to the Tenant's proper name or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices are not permitted. Letters shall be on a single line. Style of letter shall be uniform, upper case, white, individual and be confined within the signage panel. All signage must be approved by the Landlord. Existing signage not in conformance may be retained until the Tenant leaves and/or wishes to change the signage. ' B. Signage Area 'B' - Tenant signage shall consist of tenant identification only. Copy is restricted to the ' Tenant's proper name or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices are not permitted. Letters shall be on a single line. Style of letter shall be uniform, upper case, white, individual and be confined within the signage panel . All signage must be approved by the Landlord. C. Signage Area 'C' - Tenant signage shall consist of Tenant identification only. Copy is restricted to the Tenant's proper name or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices are permitted, but may not extend more than six inches above or below the letters unless the 'logo' incor- porates the Tenant identification signage. Letters may ' be on two lines, but the total height of the two lines may not exceed three feet. Single line letters may not exceed one foot four inches. Style or letter shall be ' uniform, upper or lower case, individual, illuminated or non-illuminated and be confined in an area proposed for such signage as shown. 1 ' 0e-= 3 I J D. Monument Sign - A single sided monument sign for build- ing identification shall be placed in the south yard . between the building and the sidewalk. The top of the sign shall be four foot and the total signage area shall not exceed two feet high and ten feet long (20 square feet) . The 'copy' shall have a maximum letter height of ten inches and be internally illuminated. E. Directory Sign - A single sided directory sign for tenant identification shall be placed in the North yard adjacent to the West entry. The top of the sign shall Co be low.i.se feet and the total signage area shall be •s '3 r-E`' foot wide and $ ue foot six inshcD high. a- - - - _ - • _ _ , _ - - Tenant rde3 _=_es- - - •• ' - F. No signage •shall be permitted on the exterior of the 1 building or within the building visible to the exterior • other than what is described above. i G. All exterior Tenant signs must meet the following criteria in accordance with the attached Ridgeview Medi- cal Arts Building Tenant Sign Criteria: ' 1. 13MM neon tube illumination w/60 millilamp trans- formers. 2 . 1/8" thick "plexiglas" face. 3 . The returns and back to be . 032 aluminum shop painted to match the signage panel. 4 . 5-1/2" thick letters exactly, face to back. ' 5. Single letters no higher than 36" . If stacked words, no higher than 36" total. No single letter shall exceed 16" if words are stacked. A single row name of equal height letters may be 36" high. 6. Signs shall be centered on horizontal center line of fascia. 7. Signs shall be confined to spaces and sizes shown on drawings and approved by the Landlord. - 2 cf 3 1 I 3-zci-41 I 8 . Sign installer to provide and install wire to J-box provided by others, near back of sign. Wire shall be suitable for installation in return air plenum space. ' 9. No raceways are allowed. 10. All exterior signage voltage shall be verified with existing power. 11. All signage shall be constructed per above ; however, each Tenant will be allowed their own let- ter style for signs in area 'C' . 12 . Signage contractors must include in their pricing the cost to review the criteria with each Tenant, design the actual copy, create the shop drawing of each for fabrication, and include the cost of an acquisition of the signage permit or permits for each and/or all signs. 13. Tenants shall submit to owner and to the City of ' Chanhassen for approval. ' H. Auxiliary signage, such as that used for grand openings and sales, shall be subject to approval by the Landlord. Anchor tenant signage shall be as agreed upon between anchor tenant and Landlord. Location of signage area is restricted to the designated area on the signage band provided. r 1 I 11 3 cF 3 I Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 Page 4 Krauss: Mr . Chairman , I 'm comfortable with the conditions . The plans for the restaurant are pretty straight forward . The only thing that we would look for is that there not be a' major addition of a bar or something that we didn 't anticipate and that 's not the case here . Emmings: Alright . We 've got a motion and second . Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #91-1 for Happy Gardens II Restaurant with the following conditions: 1 . All trash shall be stored internally . 2 . Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy , the applicants shall comply with all conditions previously attached to other approvals on this site . 3 . The restaurant is only permitted one wall sign . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL AMENDING THE SIGNAGE FOR THE CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS FACILITY LOCATED AT 470 WEST 78TH STREET . Public Present: Name Address Bob Copeland 7625 Metro Blvd . , Suite 165 , Edina Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . Bob Copeland: My name is Bob Copeland . I 'm one of the owners of the building . If I may , I 'd like to review briefly with you what this is all ' about . This is the Chanhassen Medical Center . It 's been called various other things . Ridgeview Medical Center most recently. This is the parking lot side and this is the street side . The two signs that are in question here , this is a directory sign. This is the proposed location of that and I don 't think the location is at question . I think the issue there is that the sign that we 'd like to put in place now is 6 inches higher than what was apparently previously approved . So that's the issue as far as I 'm concerned . So it 's 6 inches higher . So that 's one of the reasons we 're here . The other one is that this sign , this is the location of the pylon sign . It 's the 78th Street side and there are two things related to that sign . According to staff , this sign is that we 're proposing is 4 feet wider than approved by Council . And also according to staff , they don't like the idea that we would say two things on the sign . As you can see in your packet there that we would say on one part of the sign we say i i 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 5 Ridgeview Center and on the right hand side we would say the name of the tenants , American Family Insurance . Now first of all let 's maybe just take these things one at a time if we may . I think that the directory signs , we II agree with the staff that we are changing what we like and we 'd like to have it 6 inches higher now and we don 't think that 's a material change and we don 't think that 's really worthy of much conversation and hope that you just go along with the sign . We think the proportions are better and we 'd just like a 6 inch higher sign . On this pylon sign , we disagree with the staff . We maintain that this sign was approved at 14 feet wide and the reason we say that , to document that if you turn to the very last page of II your packet . 39 . Page 39 . About 3/4 of the way down you see some comments made by me on June 4th there and it says , I said that it 's not a massive Amoco type sign . We were talking about this very sign. It 's approximately a foot and a half high . I didn 't have the drawings so I wasn 't sure about that dimension but it 's 14 feet side . Then there were about 2 or 3 other comments and that was approved . So we don 't think the II width of the sign is an issue . We think that it 's 14 feet side and that 's what was approved . Now as far as whether the sign can say one thing or two things on there , I would suggest to you that there are many , many signs in this community and most other communities where these pylon signs say more II than one thing . I call your attention to the Fire Department sign . That pylon sign out there that has the name of the Fire Department and then it • also has a message on the same sign . The sign for Town Square . It II identifies Town Square . It has a message related to some sales and things and then it also mentions the name of one of the tenants . The Brooke 's Food Market is mentioned again on the pylon sign as well as on the building . I think there are other instances of that too . The Country Suites sign , pylon sign . It tells you that it 's Country Suites but it also II has another sign where they can change the wording and I think today it happens to say welcome . But it says two things on the same pylon sign . So II we feel that our sign is in keeping with the other things that have been allowed here . We don 't see anything in any ordinance that prohibits this . When the Council last time talked about not more than one tenant on a sign , 11 that was regarding the wall signs . Not this pylon sign and there wasn 't any discussion of whether there could be one or two things put on this pylon sign . So we think that we are , our changes are minor . They are totally within the ordinances and we suggest that you should vote favorably on them . Just for your information , on our wall signs we are at about 30% of what we 're allowed in terms of area . On our business directory sign , we 're at 22% of the size allowed , even with our 6 inch increase in height . 1 On the business pylon sign , we 're at 45% of the allowed square footage . Even with the so called increase . If you buy the increase line of reasoning . Over all , we are at 30% of our allowed signage related to this II building . We don 't see anything wrong with what we 're proposing to do here at all and we see it as very minor differences , if any in some instances from what was approved before . So that 's all we have to say . If you have any questions , I 'd be happy to answer them . ' Emmings: Alright , thank you . If people have questions , you 're going to be here? Bob Copeland: I 'll stick around . Oh wait. I 'm sorry. Let me point out one additional thing if I may . Just so you have the proper perspective . 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 Page 6 This drawing shows the street elevation of the building and the proposed sign so that 's the side . And this side shows the parking lot side of the ' building and the directory sign . That is 6 inches increased in height . Emmings: As far as American Family is concerned , will they also have a band on the building? Bob Copeland: No . They will not . ' Emmings: That would be their only sign? Okay. Bob Copeland: They want identification on the street which I think you can probably understand . Erhart: Would you explain that? I don 't understand that . Bob Copeland: On the 78th Street side? Erhart: Why not , as opposed to a band? Bob Copeland: Because the bands are taken . There 's no band to be able to put it on . I took a picture today and I also cut out that little square and tried to show you the approximate size of the proposed sign . This is ' the pylon sign . So you might just pass this around and see down there . The color would match the sign bands but that 's the size of the pylon we 're talking about . Erhart : You mean gold? ' Bob Copeland: Pardon me? No , it 's going to match the deep burgandy color . Conrad: It 's not a wall mounted? Bob Copeland: That 's correct . We have all the wall mounted signs that there 's room for and that we 've asked for and we 're not discussing wall mounted signs at this time . Erhart: Is the sign going to face directly into the street? Bob Copeland: Correct . Erhart: How far away from the building? Bob Copeland: I don 't know that precisely but it 's within 5 to 10 feet of the building . Erhart: Okay . And what 's the distance between the sidewalk and the building in that spot? Bob Copeland: Approximately 20 feet . Erhart: Okay , and that 's going to be grass? l Planning Commission Meeting I March 20 , 1991 - Page 7 Bob Copeland: Don 't hold me to that exact dimension . I don 't know 11 exactly . Erhart: And that 's grass in there? ' Bob Copeland: It 's grass . From the building out there 's a landscaped area where there are chips and some sort of shrubbery and that kind of thing and then sod from the sidewalk . Conrad: Is it illuminated? I Bob Copeland: This sign would be illuminated , yes . The directory sign . Conrad: Backlit or illuminated? ' Bob Copeland: It would have a light inside so I guess backlit is the term . It 's a box . It 's an aluminum box . Burgandy color and the lettering is is white . Conrad: How come you have it facing straight out versus facing the traffic II flow? Bob Copeland: I don 't think it will fit on the property . Conrad: The 14 feet wouldn 't fit , no.. Bob Copeland: No . ' Erhart: If you had a preference of having one more band . Bob Copeland: I don 't think there 's an adequate place for one . , Erhart.: Well the center band is in the center of the building and then there 's two blank spots on either side of it . Bob Copeland: Well you wouldn 't want to add just one more . Then you 'd want to add two more . Erhart: Well , we could move one over . In other words , get 6 bands . Emmings: But you did say that American Family has expressed a preference for having it? Bob Copeland: No , they haven't necessarily expressed an interest . They want good signage from the 78th Street side . We haven't discussed that with them so I 'm not really sure . Erhart: I mean , we had one meeting where you spent a bunch of money and we II spent a bunch of time and went from , I guess we clarified that we needed 5 band signs . Maybe what you really need is 6 . What tells you today that 6 months from now another tenant will come along and say what I really needed 11 was 7? I Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 8 Bob Copeland: Well I don 't know . If we 're back here again next time , you 'd have to reconsider it then . Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson . I live in Chanhassen . I think basically what we 're , from a conceptual point of view as far as signage is concerned , we have probably 3 types of tenants on main street . You 've got the retail tenant such as Brooke 's Superette or you know people that provide products to the customer and we 're sort of used to seeing them have signs . You have what is called retail service which this building and the additional building that will be built there are designed for . Primarily . Retail service means I have a service such as insurance in this case or I 'm a doctor or I 'm a lawyer or whatever and I 'd like the public to come to my ' office and know that I 'm there and I like to publicize that . So we have a retail service sector . If you look at your SIC codes in your book someday , SIC , you ' ll find that about 50% of all businesses that are retail oriented are considered to be retail and the balance are service oriented . You know ' service type of clients that are looking for . Those types of people are the type of people that would want to be in the downtown generally . You then have the type of tenant that does not need to be known that he 's there or she is there or the business is there . That would be like another one of our tenants in that building called Thies and Talle . They have nothing to sell to the public . They don 't care if the public knows they 're there • or not and so they 're not interested in signage . They could be in the industrial park and that 's the primarily place where you 'd normally find them . They happen to be an owner of the building so they happen to be in this building but that would be a typical tenant that you 'd find in the classic office building who didn 't care whether anybody knew they were there or not . So you have three types of tenants . Your downtown location is attracting primarily service oriented retail . Insurance , doctors , lawyers and real estate type of companies and retail retail who do need signage . Now when we designed this building , we put in a sign band along the top that I guess filled with , we had two tenants or whatever . We probably hit about 50% or 60% of the maximum in your sign ordinances which I checked today to see if they 'd been modified since 1986 when they were adopted . It simply says in the CBD district you 're allowed 15% of the building wall signage . You 're allowed a tenant identification sign of up to 80 square feet and you 're allowed a pylon sign of approximately 64 square feet , none of which should be higher than 20 feet . That's quoting out of your ordinances . We 've designed all of these to be much lower and ' much smaller because they wouldn't fit . I think in answer to your question , we 've now gone through the whole process of signing that building and it kind of balances . Okay? And it 's true we could move one of those letters back and forth but just to move the letters is $1 ,500 .00 or $2 ,000 .00 . Those letters are very difficult to install and so in addition to that , in this particular case the tenant , American Family has sort of a logo . It 's that little house that goes over it 's name which would be difficult to add to , from their point of view , to the sign band . They could have the name American Family but the logo 's important . And so for their point of view they would like to be where they are . It works out nice . As you say , we haven 't really talked to them about the other one but in mentioning it but , so you have 3 types of signage . In another to another question , will we ever be back? I guess as long as we are below the amount of signage allowed and there 's a public hearing process , because 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 9 we 're not just applying for a permit , I guess we have the right to come back and request that the signage be changed if it 's in properly good taste . And that 's a right that we have . So as I said , the people that drive this are the people that pay the rent and the other alternative is they just have vacant buildings and that 's not our goal . That 's what I 've got to say on that particular concept . Thank you . Erhart: Can I continue on with the point I was trying to make there? Emmings: Go ahead . ' Erhart: I wasn 't trying to be critical at all . I 'm trying to establish an alternative thought that I had and that was , you 've got a commercial II building , multi-tenant . We 've got one across the street over here in Town Square . You have a sign band . I assume , I mean do we limit the number of signs on Town Square building or do we limit it in terms of how long the II sign , the minimum length of one sign is or do we have any limits at all on the sign band on that building? Krauss: Town Square has a sign covenant package . Each tenant is entitled II to one and there is some size restriction but there 's a difference that we 've tried to maintain all along and that 's that Town Square is a retail building . It 's people selling pizzas and gasoline and restaurants . We 're talking about an office building here . We 're talking about a heavily signed office building . There isn 't an tenant in the world, not many that won 't take a sign or won 't ask for a sign and if they could get one they 'd love it . But you know when you go past the IDS building you don 't see 45 different signs for whichever law firms are inside . They have a lobby sign and that 's just the fact of life that they deal with . Another factor that 's not coming out here is that when this project was approved , as a condition of approval they were required to get sign plan approval . That sign plan deviates from the Code . Erhart: From the what? , Krauss: From the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance . In some areas it 's more restrictive and in some areas it 's less but it was part of the architectural package that was approved with this building . Now what we 're II getting is playing two sides of the coin . Yes we have our sign package but the sign ordinance also allows us more theoretically so let 's get that too . II You know , when we argue about a sign being 6 inches taller , that is trivial . It really is . I don 't know where to draw the line . If it 's 6 inches or a foot and a half or 3 feet . I mean someplace in there I suppose it becomes more significant . We 're not trying to be contrary with this. It II just seemed to us that here we had a plan that was approved . Here we 've got a request for additional signage . There 's no guidance as I would have liked to have seen I suppose in a sign covenant that restricted signage to II primary tenants . That 's something that we asked Market Square to do . Market Square has signs of different size in the sign package that was approved and it 's by the size of the tenant . Only the major tenants has a right to be on the pylon sign which basically will have the Shopping Center name and the supermarket . We 're comparing a lot of apples and oranges wit 1 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 10 this one and it makes us uncomfortable . We don 't know where to draw the line basically . Emmings: Let me ask you something here Paul . The sign in the front of the building that they 're proposing , what was it? That was approved along with the rest of the signage? The bands on the building and so forth? IKrauss: No . ' Emmings: Or is that something new? Krauss : Well I guess the way I interpretted what happened last summer was that the attention was focused on the sign bands themselves . How many sign ' bands should be approved . There was no request . No new information . No discussion apart from Mr . Copeland 's comments in the Minutes that I can recall on the staff report relative to those signs except for the fact that it may have been noted that they were there . Ahrens : We didn 't discuss that at all . ' Emmings: No . I don 't remember it at all either . So there wasn 't , were there any drawings or anything showing this , how should I refer to that sign in the front there? Monument? Erhart : Identification sign . Krauss: Yeah . Is there any new information on that? To the best of my knowledge , no . Emmings: Are you aware , is there anything on those drawings that were presented back at that time or weren 't there any? Al-Jaff : No , there weren 't any . ' Bob Copeland: That 's not , pardon me . If I 'm understanding your question , that 's not an accurate answer . I think if your question was , was a pylon sign ever approved in any form . Is that your question? Krauss: No . Bob Copeland: Then I don 't understand . Emmings: I 'm wondering if we have , I know that we talked about the sign bands and a directory sign in the back . I don 't remember ever considering a sign in the front of the building on the ground . Bob Copeland: Well there was , one was approved and it 's just a question now of what size it is and what it says . Krauss: That 's true . One was approved . Back up a year further to the original sign plan that was approved . There was a sign in this location . It 's smaller than the one being requested now and it only had the name of the building on it . I 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 11 Emmings: That 's what I was going to ask . If it was proposed , did they say I/ at that time what was going to be on it? Krauss: Yes . ' Al-Jaff: This is what was approved . Brad Johnson: That 's a building identification sign but that 's not even the name of the building . Emmings: Well , the name of the building has changed but so then you don 't II need any sign at all maybe huh? Okay . Alright , we 've still got a public hearing open here and let 's see if there 's anybody . Have you said 11 everything to us that you 'd like to say at this point? We may have more questions for you later and we 'll give you another chance to talk . Bob Copeland: Thank you . I Emmings: Is there anybody else here who wants to talk? Brad Johnson: I 'd like to say something because . . .and I object to this . being called an office building classification and the signage different . There 's nothing in your ordinances to say signage office , it doesn 't 11 delineate the difference . It just allowed signage in the CBD district and we built , we 've got the Bloomberg building which is an office building . We 've got signs all over that . We 've got , not that I think they look very good but there is no delineation . As an office building , this is a service I retail building . I was trying to point out that we do have retail type customers like an insurance agents , doctors , chiropractors , which will go in a retail building just the same , all of which need signage . And one of I the reasons that Waconia Hospital located at that location is that they knew they could have signage . One of the reasons all of those tenants you see on the front located at that location is because they were looking for a high traffic area with signage . We recently leased some additional space in this community to St . Francis Hospital . If you go down on West 79th , not that I agree with how the signs look but they have the standard sign package for an office building in that retail look . If you want to look at II that , they 've got a pylon sign and a number of different signs which the staff just approved and I wouldn 't say it looks good . You can 't see the letters on it but that 's office building signs. That 's all the same 11 characteristics of this particular building . Not in the CBD district . The signs over there don 't restrict it . I think that that"'s what you have to realize is that the precedence has been set . We have some ordinances that are here and they approve them as they go along . I Ahrens: When American Family moved into the building , did they think they were going to get a sign on the front? Brad Johnson: They will not move in the building unless they get a sign . I 'm saying my business is leasing space and I 'm in town here to make sure that the people who lease space from us make money . Ahrens: What 's the occupancy rate of the building right now? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 12 Brad Johnson: 90% . Ahrens: It 's 90% occupied? Brad Johnson: Yes . ' Ahrens: And there 's right now you 're only advertising 5? Brad Johnson: I have two more tenants in there and we 're having a hard 11 time because , we went to American Family and they said look . They had 3 other places to go potentially and we had to present to them that they could have a sign . ' Ahrens: So you 're doing this all for American Family because all those other tenants don 't care if they 're advertising? 11 Brad Johnson: I 'm doing it for the next tenant in line . The next tenant is a doctor who will ask me the same thing . Ahrens: Where will you put his sign? Brad Johnson: He may not get one . Ahrens: Will he move into the building if he doesn 't get a sign? Brad Johnson: I don 't know . But right now we know that originally we had agreed at the last meeting , as you recall , to go to 5 signs and one sign per . Okay? Emmings: Yep . Brad Johnson: And reduce the total number of potential tenants . At time we had all the spaces leased . Since that time we 've had two tenants fall through and that 's why we said , we felt comfortable . All the space was leased and right now we 've got two spaces in there to lease but I think it 's a matter of principle . We 're dealing in retail locations located in the downtown area . We 're dealing with the standard . We come back with the next building you 'd better believe is going to have a lot of signs on it and they ' ll meet code . I don 't understand when things meet code and we 're not asking for variances why we have this kind of problem . I don 't understand that problem . Bob Copeland: The building we 're in right now has 3 wall signs saying virtually the same thing on three sides of the building and it has the pylon sign or whatever you 'd call it out here , announcing that it 's City Hall again . So I mean it 's very common and we 're not stretching things to the limit at all with this 30% of what 's allowed . Ahrens : Can I ask a question? Emmings: Sure . I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 13 Ahrens: In the staff report it says , on page 3, the second paragraph . Staff originally reviewed the signage plan for the Medical Arts Building as a package and did not hold the project to a strict interpretation of the 11 sign ordinance . The ordinance does not allow low profile identification signs in the CBD . Back up to the first sentence . ' I realize there 's somewhat of an exaplanation here because you thought that it would be okay II to have these kinds of signs on this building because of the nature of the building . The way we envisioned signage to be in the central business district . Is that right? Is that why you didn 't make them comply strictly 11 with the sign ordinance? Krauss : I think there 's a couple of reasons for that . It predated both of our tenures here but in going back through this we had a premiere building 1 being built in downtown . It was built with participation of the City . It was held to something of a different standard . They were required by the Planning Commission to come back in for a signage plan approval because apparently the Planning Commission and City Council felt strongly enough about it that it was an element that you wanted to have some additional authority to control . We 're willing to abide by that commitment and in fact that commitment as redefined last year and again , I don 't know where to draw the line on these things . When we have a sign plan that 's approved . for Market Square for example . That package of sign covenants , it 's almost like a PUD for signs . That becomes the ordinance for that site . That was 11 the sign plan approval . They do have the right to come back as they 're doing to request modifications to that but again , then to say that there 's an entitlement because the ordinance which is a notoriously bad ordinance , gives them something more , I have a tough time digesting that . Bob Copeland: In what way didn 't the original package meet the ordinance? That 's what you say there . You say we 're not allowed a low sign? You have II them all over the city . Krauss : Not in the CBD . Bob Copeland: You don 't? Krauss: They 're actually illegal in the CBD . Now we may have some non- conforming ones or grandfathered ones . Bob Copeland: Where does it say you 're not allowed them? I Emmings: I 'm going to call an end to this argument . Brad Johnson: Well the point being is that in the City ordinance , and it 's II written in there , it does not allow a low profile . All it says is that it cannot exceed 20 feet in height . Bob Copeland: I would think a lower sign would be better . Emmings: Have you presented to us what you want to present to us at this point? Brad Johnson: Yep . i I I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 14 Emmings: Alright , is there anyone else here who wants to talk on this issue? ' Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: Alright , Joan . Ahrens: It seems we 've been discussing these signs ad nauseam or we did last spring . We never discussed and if there was a discussion it took place before I came here but I don 't remember any discussion of any additional signs besides the 5 bands . If you say they were approved , of course I believe you . I didn 't like the 5 bands . I had a real problem ' with those to begin with . I thought they looked bad and I think they do look bad . I think there 's no conformity at all in the lettering or in the size or the style and to add another sign on there advertising one more tenant in a way that 's completely , I 'm looking at this picture . In a way that 's completely different from the rest of them , I think will detract from the building . On the other hand I have a real problem with how this whole thing was approved to begin with . It seems to me that they were told a variety •of things as to what would fly sign wise and I 'd hate to think that we 're just making up the rules as we go along but it kind of looks like that to me . I hate the idea of they said the applicants' would come in repeatedly if necessary to keep asking for signs . I think that 's a terrible idea . I think it will make the building look terrible . I was told in the beginning , I think we were all told this was going to be a professional building . Now it 's going to be a retail building . I don 't know what our expectations are of what the appearance of this building is going to be . This additional picture that was presented of , where is this? St . Francis Physician? Oh , okay . I don 't think that this is really ' relevant as far as comparing it with the signage on this other building . I think the signs on this building look a whole lot better than the signs on this retail building . Brad says that the second building that 's going to be built is going to be loaded with signs . I think that sounds terrible . I mean it sounds hideous . It sounds . Brad Johnson: I think the point is that we are allowed . One thing I object to this whole discussion is your job , as I understand it , is to interpret the ordinance . All I 'm hearing so far is personal opinions . And you wonder why we wonder what 's going on . You have an ordinance and all I hear when I come to these things is we should stick by the ordinance . You 're supposed to interpret those . Ahrens: I think the City generously didn 't make you comply with the ordinance to begin with so we 're in kind of a different situation at this time . Brad Johnson: In what way? Emmings: Okay . Brad , you 've had your shot and it 's time for her now to have , to express her opinions . Go ahead . I • 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 20 , 1991 - Page 15 Ahrens: I don't see that , I don't know why they 're going through this process for . I agree , 6 inches to increase a sign seems ridiculous . I don 't even know why they 're going through this process to increase a sign 6 II inches . I don 't know what benefit that - has . The outside sign , if it was approved and if it was allowed by the ordinance , I think maybe we should approve it . I don 't think that the size . I think the size is an issue and ' I think it should be approved as presented with just the name of the building , whatever that is now in front of it and not to have additional advertising for tenants inside . That 's it . Emmings: Okay , Jeff . ' Farmakes: Well a lot of the comments that she made I think are relevant to ' what we 're talking about here . I think this was a problem before it ever came in front of us here . Although I will agree that a matter of personal opinion does get into some of this when you 're interpretting these things . Your comment is that 's not what we 're supposed to be doing but I do think that that we should make comments that reflect the overall look of our city . I think that 's part of , or at least that was part of the questions I was asked when I interviewed for the Commission . When it comes to signage I question two things and I 've heard this comment made over and over again . The difference between a retail building and a commercial building . If the purpose of the signage is identification , as some of the comments that you made was to identify the tenant , but how does one distinguish between where you 've been identified and where you 're advertising? For instance , you have 3 signs on the original building that have the same type face . They 're a dark band and they have white type . Then you 've got a center sign that 's in a different type face and a different color coordination . Brad Johnson: Temporary . I Farmakes: Okay . And you 've got this gold one over here in a different type face again . I believe the American Family logo is in red is it not? Brad Johnson: No . Farmakes: But the type I believe is in red . You have the base background 1 sign but this logo itself is in red . Brad Johnson: Not in the sign we 're proposing . , Farmakes: Not in the sign you 're proposing? So it 'd just be in black? Brad Johnson: Like . . .plate . It 's a backlit sign. The American Family is II a standard red . The one that they currently have over on 79th Street is a backlit sign with three colors . This one will be one color . Two colors actually . It 's white plexiglass with aluminum over it . The aluminum is the color of the sign band and then they 've cut the aluminum to show what the sign , that 's how the light comes through . You have a layer of aluminum that 's going to be , what color? Bob Copeland: Burgandy . 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 Page 16 Brad Johnson: Burgandy . And then they put a white plexiglass behind that so it shows through . And behind that they light it . Farmakes: So the definition of your character is if you have a white plexiglass , it 's burgandy? Brad Johnson: There 's white plexiglass and burgandy in the little look that you see there . It 's just the reverse of what you print . Farmakes: Okay , so we have white letters on a burgandy background? Or you have a white background with burgandy letters? Brad Johnson: It 's burgandy on white . You have to see a sign and I agree , that 's confusing . Farmakes: The point I 'm trying to make here I guess is that there seems to be some sort of attempt here to stand out from the other signs . Well , Goldstar Mortgage versus the Business Health Services . Brad Johnson: We probably will admit at this particular point that that was a mistake . I now know that . It just got through the whole process and it was in the lease that the tenant required that he have gold lettering . And we 've gone back to him and suggested , because we agree it does look kind of funny , that he change it but that was approved both by us and the City . Farmakes: I think the end purpose of what I 'm trying to get at here is that whenever you have an issue or you have a client coming in , I 'm sure that subject to their interpretation , their franchise or whatever , they 're going to want the most identification that is possible under the circumstances . And when you 're interpretting these ordinances as to what type of sign you can build , I 'm sure on one hand you want the best looking building possible . On the other hand , you want the client . So when we look at these type of things , it certainly isn 't enhancing your building . I think you 'd admit that . You made the comment. Brad Johnson: The gold? Farmakes: Well , the gold one or adding on these signs . These are issues that you are doing as a matter of economic necessity . Correct? To get the client . Brad Johnson: The current trend is , if you look at Town Square , there is no consistency to the lettering and there 's a sign band that 's approximately 2 feet high . Maybe it 's 3 feet high. That runs across the top of that building . And you can any , because this is what is necessary ' in order to attract a tenant , and it can have a logo. They can have various colored signs and there 's no consistency to the lettering . Now we may have made a mistake on this building by having too narrow of a sign band and we 've identified it so much that we didn't get the free kind of spirit that we have over at Town Square . I think we 'll say that 's true . In addition to that , our first two tenants were the same tenants and they put in the same type of sign to balance out . One was on one hand in the 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting I March 20 , 1991 Page 17 left and you 've got the , what do you call it? The Business Health which is II . . .the standard lettering . . . Now Market Square , the new one , has approximately the same thing as Town Square has . It 's got a band . It will have free form letters . I don 't know what I 'm trying to get to . We really don 't feel that an American Family logo up on a sign band at this point in life is a good idea the way that is set up and that 's our decision . Farmakes: But why is that? Is that your client or is that you? Brad Johnson: That would be me . Farmakes: So you feel that . . .appearance of the building? Brad Johnson: . . .yellow sign , I 'd have to live with a logo that would ' probably look out of place . It 'd be different if everyone had a logo . We try to balance them ourselves . Farmakes: Now the star next to the Goldstar Mortgage , is that? 11 Brad Johnson: That 's a logo . , Farmakes: That is a logo? Brad Johnson: Yeah . That 's a permitted use in the downtown area on the ' sign band . Farmakes: But you don 't feel that the American State Farm Insurance logo II would look good say in that center area? Bob Copeland: That 's strictly just a matter of opinion . It 's very interesting this whole conversation because I can remember being over here at City Hall with the previous Planner and the consultant to the City where they told us when this project was still on the drawing board and they said , we don 't want a plain building . You've got to get some signage in there . They 've got to be multi-colored . We want it close to the road . We II want exciting . We want some interest . And that 's what they said . That was the tone of the project . And that 's the way it was set . Now you people look at things differently . Well you 're certainly entitled to but . . . Farmakes: You 're misinterpretting . I Bob Copeland: . . .there was a different tone set early on for this . Farmakes: You 're misinterpretting my question. My question to you was, 11 what was the motivation for the story here as to how these signs , what was the history behind these signs being different? , Brad Johnson: All those signs fit in the sign band . And that , from our point of view , would have been okay and from the City 's point of view . We approved the signs and the City approved the signs . Once the band has been set . The same for Town Square . I mean we could have had the same signs for Town Square as we had here . 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 18 Farmakes : Well , I 'm still unclear . Maybe I 'm not listening to you correctly but I am unclear as to the motivation why you don 't want to put it up on that sign band? Why your client doesn 't or if your client is conditional as to it being in that corner down in the way it 's being proposed here? Brad Johnson: We had heard the last meeting five . When we came out of this last meeting five tenants on the sign band . One sign per little step in and out . Five signs . That 's what we heard . So we never presented to them that they could do it any other way . I don 't think we could do the logo . We could say American Family Insurance . Farmakes: Why is that? Brad Johnson: It 's just not wide enough . Farmakes : So the size would be too small if that roof was up and above there for the type size is what you 're saying? Brad Johnson: You can 't go outside the sign band to actually accomplish what I think their logo does . . . Farmakes : Now do you interpret that or does your client as to how big? I mean is there a certain point size on that type? Brad Johnson: The client . Farmakes: The client does? Brad Johnson: If we 're going to do the logo , you have to do . . . Farmakes: No , I 'm talking about the size of the sign for the size of the ' type . The size of the type as it 's read from the street . Brad Johnson: They have a sign standard that says American Family or Century 21 or any of those places . There 's a certain relationship that they have said in their franchise and whatever and you just try to work that as much as possible into the ordinances . The scale of that . . . Farmakes: I guess that answers as many questions as I have . I agree with you to some extent that that ordinance is vague and I hope that maybe we can rectify some of that in the future here. Emmings: Do you have anything on the directory sign in the back? Any feelings about it one way or the other? Farmakes : I feel it serves it 's purpose . I guess I don 't see a problem with it . I don 't have a problem on the other side of the parking lot . Emmings: Okay , Brian? Batzli : Directory sign in the back , thumbs up for me . I think that we have every right to be looking at this how we 're looking at it given the I IF Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 19 way the building was developed and the conditions and everything y g p ondition y hang else . As you 'll remember from the last time , I thought that this building was kind of the equivalent to a downtown Excelsior area . I liked the signs . I hate II the way the applicant keeps on coming in here and I would say let 's do this one but kind of a read my lips . No more signs. I can 't believe that they 're obviously in here . They want another tenant and for economic considerations they 're going to come in and try and brow beat us and I kind II of resent that attitude . Emmings: Annette? ' Ellson: I don 't have a problem with the directory sign . I agree with Brad that there 's differences in the SIC codes and things like that . I kept thinking to myself that the difference I always see with Town Square and all these others is that they actually people draw people in because of the sign . You 're going to go and buy something and would an insurance sign make me stop and say , gee honey let 's go in and talk about insurance while II we 're driving by . You know it 's these types of businesses aren't that kind . You 're looking them up in the Yellow Pages and a lot of people say things like we are in the Medical Arts Building or they say things like that simply because they 're that type of business that still draw people and they don 't have all the signage . I think that they don 't have nearly the drop-in traffic that Town Square type of take-out chow mein would and , things like that . But if the ordinance allows them to have that , I 'd prefer it be up on the wall . It 's funny , I would rather give up another space on that wall and make a small American Family in the band then to put it on the ground there . But if the ordinance allows it on the ground , then I would want to take away 6 inches and make it as small as possible . That 's it . Emmings: Ladd? Conrad: Paul , the standards for an identification sign. What , other than I size , are there standards? Krauss: In our ordinance? Conrad: Kind of like what can go on? Krauss: No . And that 's why we 've resorted to basically sign covenants on II the newer developments because not only does it often not give the developer what they want , which isn't the case here , but it doesn't achieve what the City wants . Now for example Town Center , or I 'm sorry . Market Square has signage that 's guided as to type . I mean I think it 's all like II the backlit individual letters . The size of the sign area is regulated . The size of the sign area relative to the tenant and the prioritization of 11 the tenants is regulated . Within those guidelines they have a lot of latitude . They can do different colored signs and that can look attractive . Conrad: So it 's no unique . This is not a precedent where you have the ' name of the building or the name of the group of offices plus a tenant? That 's not a unique thing? • 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 Page 20 Krauss: Well , it 's not unique in Chanhassen to date and I 'm real relunctant to rely on our past experience . iConrad: Tell me if you had your druthers , what would you do with pylon signs? Krauss: That they should identify the property , the building itself and if they want to identify a tenant , it should be the major tenant . Conrad: But your preference would probably not be for 10 foot high pylon signs? Krauss: No , that 's a quirk in the ordinance and I wouldn't defend that . That 's wrong but that 's the way it is . Conrad: Do you have a vision? What you just gave me would be a vision . 11 Shorter signs . Really to get rid of some of the clutter or the ugliness of the Sinclair sign or a gas station sign , we really don 't want that in downtown . Are there other characteristics to these signs? They literally ' have to be lit at night to be of significant use but is there anything else? And we 're getting off a little bit Brad . I 'm just kind of curious . Krauss: We don 't mind monument signs being lit or being prominent but when you 're monumenting something you 're sticking it out by the right-of-way . It 's 10 feet back from the street . It 's a different kind of sign than a tenant sign . I was just talking to Sharmin and I was saying somewhat facetiously what if this was a 5 story building or 4 story building? We 'd had 3 sign bands . I mean the issue . Conrad: You like your identification signs to be kind of classy don 't you? Krauss : Yes and often times they 're landscaped.. They 're lit . They 're pretty expensive things for a developer to do. And frankly we , at a staff level , we like the Brooke 's pylon sign . We think that works pretty well . It identifies the center and the primarily tenant . Conrad: When the City Council allowed the 5 bands on the front and the back , what was it that , you know originally there were only 5 bands to be allowed and then some of us decided that it was appropriate to have the 5 in the back . What ordinance were we concerned with? What guideline were we concerned with when we granted the 5 on the back as well as the 5 . Was there something? Was it common sense type of issue or was there a one sign per building? Was it a one sign per street frontage type of deal and the back side wasn't on the street frontage? Krauss: To be honest I don't know . We didn 't support that . Conrad: I know you didn't . You and Joan were in the same camp. When , I don 't want to belabor this and I 'm sorry . You believed you had a sign agreement and therefore your inflexibility on this one . Is that the right? Basically them came in under signed in terms of what would be permitted and maybe we went and allowed some things that typically our ordinance might not have granted but I 'm just kind of curious about the fact that they I Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 20 , 1991 - Page 21 could come back because they still have some liberties . They still may have some more tenants and I think that the future is a little bit unclear to me as to how we control this one Paul . But your interpretation is once II you have a sign package , that 's it and no changes unless you go through a process right? Krauss: That 's exactly the case . To us that 's no different than you approving an architectural plan for a building . We 're there to make sure that that happens . Conrad: So it 's not like we had the perfect package before? It was there II and now we 're going through the process? Okay . Just a few things . Personal opinion . I don 't care if it 's retail sales or service sales . This country is really , you know this is the same spiel I gave you the last II time . Businesses need signage . They absolutely have to have it and I think we , you know I think signage can improve the looks if it 's done well 11 and I just don 't have any problem at all making sure that there 's signage . I don 't care if it 's an office building or a retail center where you buy products . I think signage has to be . The question in my mind is how tastefully it 's done . I think our sign ordinance is the biggest pain because you can never , they 're always 50 pages long and they 're just a real II . tough thing to develop standards for . There 's all different situations but anyway , I don 't have a problem at all with the directory sign in the back . I think when you take a look at it , common sense tells you that it 's fine and to add a few inches here or there , there 's just no problem . As I look at the informational sign or the identification sign on the front , we probably approved something before . I wouldn 't design it this way . I think this is low impact visibility the way they 're doing this . This is not what I would be doing but this is what their decision is as to how to do it . And again , I think it 's low impact . When you take a look at it , I II don 't think it 's , I just believe it 's not doing , it 's not hurting Chanhassen 's aesthetic appeal in downtown by allowing it . My concern is the future . My concern is we don 't have standards really for what these informational or identification signs should be . They can be really pretty . They can be a corner stone . And I looked at this and I 'm not sure what we can do where they need signage . I just don 't know that we could put up something that 's really significant in that little area that 's there . So basically my biggest concern right now is that whatever they put II in aesthetically fits , and I don 't know that right now. The quality of what 's been presented to me tonight doesn't tell me anything and so I don 't I have a problem with the bands and the signage up there. There 's a few little problems here and there but I don't see that a big deal but I do care about the quality of the signs that 's going in. They have to relate . I heard the words but I would have to make sure that staff . I don 't want a II grotesque sign coming out of there . I really don't and when you start playing with illumination , I get a little bit concerned. So I don 't have a problem with what 's being requested tonight . I do have a problem with making sure that it 's aesthetically pleasing and again as I say , this is not the sign the way I 'd solve the problem but that 's the way they owners want to solve it . That 's okay . The only other thing I think we should talk about -is what if they come back again. Are we going to go through the II same thing? Do we have a package deal? The applicant says no. We don't have a package deal . We may want to come back . We may have additional 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 22 need and maybe we have to decide whether we have a package deal tonight and this is it or we 'll entertain other signage changes . That 's all I 've got . I/ Emmings: Can I ask , do I hear you saying you don 't mind the idea of a sign in the front of the building as it 's proposed as long as it 's not an ugly sign? Conrad: Aesthetically pleasing . It should fit in with what the signage elements that they 've already got . It sounded like they have those . I 'm not convinced . You know I haven 't seen the hows . How they 're going to do it here . I just really have to be comfortable that it 's not a glaringly different appearing sign than what 's there . That 's my biggest concern . rEmmings : So would you want to see that before we acted on it? Conrad: Would I want to see it? Somebody should . I don 't care if it 's staff , City Council . I don 't know that I need to give my . You know everybody's got their own personal opinion of what beauty is and I guess I 'd prefer somebody has to do it . Erhart: Paul you mentioned the word , you mentioned that we had a covenant with Town Square signage? Krauss: Yes . Erhart: Do we have a covenant with the owners of this building? I/ Krauss : Well , you know I don 't think the terminology was as sophisticated then but essentially yes . You had a site plan with some specific signage requirements that were conditions of approval . I consider that the same as a covenant . Erhart: What 's the , with Town Square what 's the , in your mind what 's the form of covenant there? Al-Jaff: It was designed by Fred Hoisington . Brad Johnson: The difference between the two projects is that this is not a PUD . . . .PUD by definition . You can vary from the ordinances but you have to have a pack when it 's all over with . And the CB0 because you don 't need the PUD benefits in order to do a building on a small lot . . . Krauss: The question here though becomes one of is there a document called the sign covenant that 's recorded with the property that the City 's accepted and has some legal standing . Erhart: We have that with Town Square? Krauss: There is a separate document with Town Square . This one no . This one , when you approved the building you conditioned it on a sign plan approval . You then approved that sign plan . It became a portion of the site plan at that point . I sort of regard the two as the same but administratively they 're a little different I guess . 1 Planning Commission Meeting , March 20 , 1991 - Page 23 Erhart: If you were , if this building , if this• was going to come in . Let 's say it was a flat piece of ground today and they came in and you feel , I sense that you would want to have a separate sign covenant if this II was a new project today or did I misinterpret . Krauss: That 's correct . Erhart: Which? Krauss: That we 'd want a separate document that was recorded that had some II better legal standing . Erhart: Alright , and that 's because you feel the ordinance is too vague? II Krauss: Yeah . Erhart: Or do you just think that 's the way signs ought to be managed? Krauss: Well in my own personal opinion , this goes beyond what the ordinance is telling us . Yes , I think it 's better for all concerned to have a sign package that 's consistent architecturally with the building . That the City buys into . The developer buys into that guides , you know tenants will come in and ask for the stars but you lay a covenant out and 11 you say this is all you can get . Erhart: Do other cities do it that way? Krauss: Oh sure . Erhart: You 've got a situation here where you 've got a no win situation . II We can talk about whether you like signs or whether you don 't like signs but that changes every minute . Every tenant the situation 's going to change . You 're going to have the building owner wanting to have another sign for every tenant that wants the signs bigger . Brad you mentioned there 's a 1 foot height limit on that sign . Where is that? If there 's no covenant , then why is there a 1 foot height limit on the band? Brad Johnson: We have a sign band that we created . Erhart: So it 's your own deal . So if you want to put a 1 1/2 foot American Family sign up there , that has nothing to do with the city . Krauss: Except that the sign band is part of the architectural elevation I that was approved with the building . Erhart: But what I 'm hearing here is that someone 's arguing that that was for that day but they can come back anytime and change it to a 2 foot sign II band because our ordinance allows it . Krauss: I think that 's sort of what you 're hearing . I Erhart: But that 's not right or what? I 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 24 1 Batzli : That 's not the City 's position . I/ Conrad: The City said it was granted once . Erhart: But what I 'm sensing here is that , and maybe I 'm misreading the ' Planning Commission , is that we 're kind of going along . And maybe I 'm misreading the group here a little bit . It just bothers me that I guess that we 're going to have to go through that . First of all what bothers me is that the applicant expects to get this through . I think you do and at what point do you stop . At what point do we stop having meetings? At what point , you know Bill Boyt talked about a 14 foot sign and everything , or 10 ' or anything and somebody expected that we were going to have a 10 foot sign and we spent a lot of money getting this into a document and how long does that go on? I guess the other side of that is I guess the whole band looks terrible today . Whatever you guys came up with for an approach , didn 't work . I think Brad . . .says it doesn 't work . I guess I 'd like to see if we 're right out on a limb , negotiate a covenant so we don 't have to come back here with another meeting and spends hours and thousands of dollars of city money on another meeting and money from these guys and let 's negotiate a package.. Make a covenant that 's going to end it . I personally think at this point , I think the band around Town Square looks better than the signs on this building . Brad Johnson: . . .Town Square and the lead tenant chose small signs , small , you know what you see . I/ Erhart: The suggestion that I would have is ," in the first place I think it 's kind of ridiculous to make the identification sign two purpose . If ' it 's identification sign , make it the title of the building and negotiate , make a continuous band around the building . I think it looks better if you have logos up there in multiple colors and put some character into it . If you 're going to have signs , then let 's put some character into it and negotiate a covenant to give them the signs they need . Keep some consistency so the identification sign is the identification sign . Not something else that they 'll come back and say now I want American Family on this side and another one on this side because we don 't have the band space and it 's going to go on and on and negotiate a covenant . ' Brad Johnson: The original plan on this was to have a band like you suggested with as many tenants as we wanted . We came back and somebody said well you can only have 5 tenants . We don 't have this kind of problem with Market Square because , over here at Town Square because if we expand ' to 7 tenants or 10 tenants , there 's no limit as long as their sign is in that band . And this particular one , because you limited the number that can be in the band , somebody has limited it . I also think , and I told Bob ' this , the band is a little narrow and we made that decision by about a foot . And that 's because we put that burgandy thing in there . It 's a little narrow to accomplish what we have over there . It 's an architectural I thing Erhart: In summary , I guess I don 't care about the 6 inches on the directory sign . I don 't think it makes sense to have both an occupant advertising sign and building identification sign on one sign and I think Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 25 we should , I 'd like to see this go back and negotiate a covenant that g ives them a whole fresh look at that band . Where you allow them to have adequate signage up there for occupants - I Emmings: Okay . I agree with everybody . Is there a motion? Conrad: We 've got 6 different approaches here . ' Emmings: I don 't know . I guess where I come down on this is , I don 't think we 're really got , I don 't have any problem with saying to Brad a deal 's a deal . They made a deal with the City here and I don 't care what the ordinance says , they made the deal and we certainly have every right to make them stick with it if we want to . Having that said , I also don 't have 1 any problem with them coming back and asking for modifications . I think that 's the way the system 's got to work a little bit . That doesn 't mean we have to give it to them . And I really , I don 't think it 's fair , I don 't like the position that Brad took that because the ordinance allows it that somehow we have to give it to him . That simply is not , that 's wrong as far as I 'm concerned . I think what they were allowed , if it was ambiguous in the beginning , was certainly clarified last year when we looked at this . And so I think they 've been treated fairly and a deal 's a deal to some extent . The directory sign in the back , if they want it 6 inches bigger , I have absolutely no problem with that . That 's fine . The sign in the front , II I agree with Tim , ought to be a building identification sign and shouldn 't have anybody on it other than the name of the building . American Family , if they 're going to go in that building , is going to have to have a sign and I have no idea on how you 're going to accomplish that . I don 't have any suggestions for you but I don 't want to see it down on that sign . I don 't know what else to say . Somehow American Family needs a sign and you may well have to come back and do what Tim suggested and start a process to II rethink all of the signs on the building and we 'll have to look at it again . I don 't think that the , I personally would not like to see the American Family logo up on the sign band but I might change my mind on that . Those are my comments I guess . Do you have anything else you want II to add back there? Bob Copeland: I have one thing that we 're not here tonight because of our desire to . . . The only reason we 're here is because the staff wouldn 't approve , they didn 't consider this minor enough to approve it at their level . In other words , we didn 't want to have this public hearing . We resisted it . . . Emmings: I don 't have any problem with you coming in here and asking for anything . I really don 't . I think that 's the way we 're set up to work so I don't resent or think there 's anything wrong with you coming in and asking for anything you want . Brad Johnson: Probably the way to solve the problem is a little bit like I what you 're saying , what Tim says and what everybody else says . Get the signs on the sign band and originally we didn 't have a limit . We just knew 11 we had a limited amount of space but not limit the number of tenants which , see Market Square if you had gone in and said , okay. You wouldn't even think this way but you can only have sign for 5 tenants . You would have . 11 J Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 26 heard us scream and holler . We knew we were oin to have more . So if we g g could just limit ourselves to a sign area there , I don 't think we 'd have I/ half this discussion and that 's originally how we started out . At some period of time somebody said , we only want , we want to do the cookie cutter . There 's 5 spots . That 's what we want and that 's where we put ' them . We possibly made a couple of mistakes in the design of the sign band because we went in and really made it narrow by painting those little stripes on that you see on the , they 're architectural stripes . We said that 's where the signs are going . You don 't see that on Town Square . There is no point and we can come back and talk about that and that might be the solution . Because then it 's our job to just kind of keep it balanced . Right now it 's so tight that if we go beyond that , it looks ' funny and everybody 's designing their signs to fit into those little spots . I think you 're right about that . Emmings: Would you have any feeling about whether you 'd want us to act on this or whether you 'd want to table it while you try and work something out for us to ,look at again? Erhart: We could move on the directory sign tonight and table the front . Ahrens: Well the sign in front isn 't going to go the way , we•'re not going ' to approve that it sounds like anyway . . . Emmings : I think you 're right . Brad , I 'm waiting for you . Brad Johnson: I 'm talking to the owner of the building and he feels that we should go ahead . Emmings: Okay . Alright , does anyone else have any comments about this? If not , is there a motion? Erhart: Well I 'll just move to say the Planning Commission recommends denial to the signage change I guess . Conrad: Do you want to approve the directory sign and deny? Erhart: Well I know the applicants just asked us , would you want us to separate the two issues? Brad Johnson: Well it would help . Bob Copeland: If you 're not going to recommend approval for both , then recommend approval for one . ' Erhart: Okay . I 'll move to approve the change to the directory sign as requested by the applicant . Emmings: And by the directory sign we 're talking about the sign behind the building? Okay . Alright we 've got a motion . Is there a second? Krauss: Question . Did you want to include in the motion your guidance as to the suggestion about resubmitting something around the sign band? I Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 27 Emmings: No . I think the Minutes are clear on that . Is there a second? Conrad: Second . 1 Emmings: Is there discussion on the motion? Conrad: Basically what we would entertain . No . That 's not part of the motion . Basically Tim is not saying anything about what we do from here . Just the fact that we 're looking at , we approve the directory sign and we II haven't given staff direction with this motion . Erhart : We 're only asking the 6 inches . 5 feet . That 's all . Conrad: And so it 's up to us whether would want , well it 'd be up to the applicant to carry this through to City Council or to come back with regard to the particular identification sign . 11 Emmings : Or how to change all of the signage on the building to maybe a different kind of concept or whatever . Conrad: You know just out of curiousity , are we open to looking . You know we 're sending some signals here and I think regardless of what are motions are , I think the signals are real important . Are we open to looking at that band? Emmings: Let 's do this . Let 's call a question on the motion and then let 's discuss . Give them whatever direction people feel like they want to , if they haven 't already done it in their comments . Is there any other discussion on the motion? Let 's call the question . t Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend the site plan for the Medical Arts Building to approve the directory sign as proposed. All voted in favor except Brian Batzli who opposed and II the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1 . Emmings: Okay , Brian tell us why you 're opposed. Batzli : I would make it a condition that they don 't get any more signs after this . This is it and this is the full and final agreement and I would also vote to approve the sign they 've got in front . Emmings: Okay . Now as far as any direction to the applicant . Ladd , do you want to? 1 Erhart: Do you want to vote on the other one first? Emmings: What? ' Erhart: Do you want to vote on the front sign first? Before we give direction to the applicant so we know where the vote is . Conrad: That 's not part of your motion . You didn 't include that . I I ' Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 28 Ellson: You can only have one motion . Erhart: I thought Steve that you wanted to vote on both the front and the rear and then give . If that gets denied , then give our opinion to the applicant . Emmings: No . What I understand we 've done here , just to recap . We 've approved the sign on the back of the property and that 's all . Otherwise we've denied what they 're asked for . ' Erhart : Okay . I thought specifically we were going to take a vote on the denial of the rest of it so it was clear in the Minutes . ' Emmings : No . That 's done with what we did , as far as I 'm concerned . Now is there any direction? I think Ladd wants to ask if there 's sentiment up ' here if people would look at . Conrad: Changing the sign band . Yeah . But Tim you obviously feel it 's . ' Erhart : You 've got mine . Emmings: Would you Ladd? Conrad: Yeah . 1 Emmings: Yeah , I would too . Annette? Elison: If it was tastefully and aethetically done well . It 's hard to say across the board . It could come in 10 feet tall and then you said , now you ' said the sign . . . Conrad: I don 't realistically you 're not going to change what you 've got ' up there . You 've got a lot of money into your signage right now don 't you? You 're not going to go out in the next . Brad Johnson: The tenants do . ' Conrad: And the tenants aren 't really going to go out and say oh boy , let 's change our signage . Brad Johnson: We could come back with signage . . . I 've got the middle left . There is no sign there . If we come back and handle that and then as we add the other ones . They were limited to 5 total tenants on the front and we 've got a problem . Let us kind of handle that area , we 're okay . Conrad: The question really is here , and I don 't know . Maybe it 's not ' that big of a deal . Do we feel committed to 5 or do we feel open to multi as long as it 's designed well? ' Brad Johnson: My point is I think we were a little bit overly rigid on how I listened to you and look at Town Square and I keep saying what 's the difference . We were very rigidly defined on our own , not by you , on where we could put the band . It doesn 't look . . . 1 II t , I/Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 29 II Ahrens: I guess I have trouble opening up the band issue . It seems to me we have very little control over that anyway . Brad 's saying that the reason Goldstar looks the way it does , which is not the way we would have II wanted it to look is because it slipped through the cracks of the lease . They got a sign and they entered into an agreement with the tenant to have the sign the way it is and they got it that way . I Brad Johnson: One of the reasons it doesn 't look very good is all the other signs are white . II Emmings: Right . Ahrens: Well yeah . Whatever the problem is . I Brad Johnson: It just didn 't work . Ahrens: Well what I 'm saying is how you got to . the problem . You got to II the problem because everything slipped through the cracks . It 's not like we had control over the method . I Conrad: It 's real interesting . We 're getting into some aesthetic . judgments here but just out of . Emmings: That 's fair . II Conrad: We love it don 't we when it gets arbitrary like this . I Emmings: No , but I think this is fair . They talk about bringing in another building and we 're getting a lot of practical experience on how that other building 's going to look . Brad says it 's coming back with a lot II of signage and I think we 're going to be real fussy . If they get that building , there 's going to be a lot of fussiness with signs and we 'll have learned a lot from this . I don 't want to get into the specifics . ' Ahrens: I don 't want to talk about that either but what my point is is that we 're talking about having control over what it 's going to loo like over whether it 's going to look nice or bad according to whatever standards II we use but do we really have any control if this is something that the tenant decides anyway in a lease? II Emmings: Well we could , I suppose , when we limited them to 5 sign bands we could have said they 'll all be the same color . There will be no logos . I mean there are whole bunch of things we could have said . I Ahrens: I don 't think we need to do that . I think they may need to be approved by the staff or something. II Emmings: Right , but there are ways you could limit that if you wanted to . Ahrens: Oh sure . Sure . I Conrad: Are we looking for multi-colored signage on this building? I 'm hearing that . I 'm just going to tell you another personal . . . I 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 30 Emmings : Well Tim . ' Conrad: Yeah , I guess Tim . It 's probably Tim . Erhart: I 'm color blind . ' Conrad: Tim 's whispering in my ear and I 'm assuming that he 's looking for everybody . The signage that is there is really low impact right now folks . It really is . When you get white on a burgandy at a foot high , we 're not ' talking about breaking anybody 's eyeballs in terms of gaudiness . You may be reacting to , I 'm not sure what everybody 's reacting to aesthetically here but again , so I just don 't want to send a signal that says we want flashy . I think signage on this kind of building should be very practical . It should identify who 's there but I just don 't feel it should be literally the backlit , multi-colored logoish that we put on a retail store because ' that stuff can be very attractive on a retail center . I don 't know that it fits on this particular . I know it doesn 't fit on this particular building so again , just from my personal standpoint , I don 't want the flashy stuff and I think they 've got practical signs that work really well to help people identify where services are . They 're not going to stop you in your tracks . •I don 't mind what we really have here other than the gold color but again . ' Ahrens: I think we need some design standards . We obviously don 't have any . We have 7 people up here with different opinions . ' Conrad: You 're right . We 'd all be in a different boat . If we were to figure it out Joan , we 'd all be different . Richard Wing: My name is Richard Wing and I 'm going to speak as a resident . Joan has commented on the gateway appearance of our city . You come in on TH 101 and we go through the Amoco station and we go through a Valvoline Oil Change . Now even though it 's going to be the best designed place which I think we can take pride in . And as we come into Chanhassen , both the Mayor has commented on the gateway affect of our city . The biggest building and the largest building , the most significant building in ' our gateway is the building we 're discussing here and I 'm going to just urge you to be very conservative and if in doubt , to err on the side of being conservative because that is a gateway building . I would like to see it as a professional building . I think I would like to see it classy . I don 't want to see a mass of color . That 's a classy building right now and as I 'm looking at these plans , I think there 's a trend to get away from that classiness . So if in doubt , my personal feelings are that you err , if you have to make a decision , err on a conservative side and let 's worry about this in the future . I would have a real hard time dressing that building up with signs . That is a gateway building . That is a major impact visually coming into the city and I think we have to treat that with special care . It 's a very unique location . 11 Emmings : Alright . Unless somebody 's really burning to make more comments on this , let 's have an end to it . Does anyone else want to say anything? I i 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 20 , 1991 - Page 31 Conrad: Ah yeah . Signage is just so much fun . This is really great . I would like to , and I speak for myself . I don 't know Steve where you 're going . If there 's a motion coming here .or if we 're just going to let it go II but I think as we look at that band , the challenge should be for , you know as we open , as we may give more flexibility to that band , I 'd sure like to see a better sign for the whole building . In other words , what we were talking about identification sign , I think that 's going to make the building seem that much more significant . If we talk about it , well personally I 'd like to see that identification sign as a significant , good ' looking sign versus putting advertising messages on it . Emmings: I agree . Okay . Brad Johnson: Can I ask one question? Emmings: Yeah . Brad Johnson: That 's my own . The owner doesn 't agree with it . If we were to kind of dress up the band . Try to figure out some flexibility that we don 't have , would you guys go along with that? Is that what I hear you saying? As long as we come with some consistency and it keeps the building . looking okay? Emmings: Yeah . I think that 's what we 're saying . But you 'll have to work II with the staff on that . We 're not in the business of designing bands . Brad Johnson: . . .have Bob do that . Emmings: Yeah . I think that 's what I hear too . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning II Commission meeting dated April 6 , 1991 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS/DISCUSSION OF PUD'S AND II PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE BY JOHN SHARDLOW OF DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW AND UBAN AND TERRY FORBORD OF LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. Paul Krauss gave a short presentation on the background of the item and then introduced John Shardlow and Terry Forbord who each gave slide presentations on proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance . Emmings: I don 't know if this is too obvious a question . Maybe I 'm just not getting it but in a lot of ways it would seem to me to be simpler for a I developer to just make one of those good old fashion subdivisions where you put in blocks of lots . What 's in it for a developer? Why are the PUD 's desireable for a developer? Is it basically the flexibility so they 're not II confronted with rigid standards or that they can make a higher quality development that will be better in the marketplace? What 's the advantage for the developer? r ITY O F rC DATE: 3/20/91 1 CUAAEI CC DATE: 4/8/91 r ,„ - CASE #: 88-17 Site Plan By: Al-Jaff/v r r STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Amendment to the Signage as part of the Site Plan Review Approval for an Identification Sign and a Directory Sign I �Z LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Great Plains Boulevard and West 78th V Street Intersection I 70 APPLICANT: Bob Copeland 7625 Metro Blvd. , Suite 165 QEdina, MN 55435 II r PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: DENSITY: rADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD; Heritage Park Apartments ga , S - CBD; commercial E - CBD; commercial W - CBD; commercial 1 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W r '"”' PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site contains the existing Medical Arts Building and is a fairly level site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial r I Medical Arts Site Plan Signage Amendment March 20, 1991 Page 2 BACKGROUND/SUMMARY On May 3, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary plat and site plan review for the Medical Arts building (Attachment #1) . Included in the site plan review was a final facia, signage and external lighting based on the plans stamped received April 14 , 1989. The sign plan was required since the existing sign ordinance did not adequately provide for this building. In addition, the project was developed with HRA assistance and it may therefore, have been considered to be reasonable for the city to expect a high standard of design. On May 30, 1990, the City Council approved an amendment to the signage plan for the Medical Arts Building to allow a total of 10 wall signs on the building, 5 on the north elevation and 5 to the south elevation. This amendment was requested after staff found 2 sets of plans dated April 14, 1989 and April 18, 1989. The 2 sets contained many differences as far as signage plan is concerned (Attachment #2) . There are 2 proposed signs currently being reviewed. The first ' sign is one free standing identification sign, with an area of 20 square feet to be located at the southwest corner of the building. The sign was proposed to be 3 ' 6" in height. The applicant is requesting that the area be increased to 29 square feet, the width be increased from 10 feet to 14 ' 6" and the main board to contain 2 signs instead of one. The second sign is a directory sign to be located on the back side of the building. The free standing directory sign was proposed to be 4 ' 6" high and 3 ' 6" across. The applicant is requesting the height be increased to 5 feet (Attachment #3) . Approximately 2 months ago, Mr. Brad Johnson met with staff and discussed the signage plans that were submitted. Mr. Johnson indicated that there had been a discussion between the former Planning Director, Steve Hanson, and himself regarding the signage. Staff found two sets of plans in the file. One set was dated April 14, 1989 and one dated April 18, 1989. The only difference between the two plans is the size of the sign. The April 14th plan indicated a sign size of 10 ' x 3 '6" , while the April 18th plan indicated a 20 ' x 3 ' 6" sign. Mr. Johnson believes that the plans that were submitted on April 18, 1989, are the plans that were approved by the Council. There is no mention whatsoever, throughout any of the reports, nor the minutes of Council or Planning Commission of the revised signage plans. The last report that discussed the signage was submitted May 3 , 1989, to the City Council. One of the recommendations of approval was that the City ' 1 11 Medical Arts Site Plan Signage Amendment March 20, 1991 Page 3 ' Council approve the revised site plan and final facia signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped received April 14, 1989 . On February 5, 1991, the applicant submitted a revised identification sign. The sign remained at 3 . 6 feet in height but the width of the sign increased to 141/2 feet from 10 feet. The second revision is that it is no longer an identification sign for the building but rather identifies the building on one-half and has tenant signage on the second half of the sign. The directory sign maintained the 3 . 6 foot sign width but the height of the sign increased from 4 . 6 feet to 5 feet. Staff originally reviewed the signage plan for the Medical Arts Building, as a package and did not hold the project to a strict interpretation of the sign ordinance. The ordinance does not allow low profile identification signs in the Central Business District. Staff made its recommendation for the signage plan for the building by keeping the design of the' building in mind and recommending approval of a signage plan that would be consistent with the city's expectations of its downtown. A building's identification sign should not contain another tenant's sign on the same board. This building has more than sufficient wall mounted signage for tenants where this sort of identification function can be accommodated. Another issue which staff took into consideration ' was that when the City Council approved the wall business signage plan amendment on May 30, 1990, one of the conditions of approval was that two businesses may not share the same band. Staff is ' treating the identification sign with the same type of consideration to give the building signage a unified look. Staff must also point out that at the June 4, 1990, City Council meeting, Councilman Workman asked the applicant, "If you have a demand for more than 10 signs, are you going to be putting more signs up?" The applicant replied, "No, we're quite comfortable. ' We' ll have 5 major tenants. " (Refer to notation on page 37 of the June 4, 1990, City Council minutes. ) Staff believes that the original plans that were submitted on April 14, 1989, and as ' amended last year, provide an adequate and possibly generous sign package. We are therefore reluctant to recommend approval of further increases in signage and are recommending that the proposed amendments be rejected. The applicant would thus be allowed to construct the identification sign minus the tenant board and the directory sign, in conformance with previously approved plans. I r 1 Medical Arts Site Plan Signage Amendment March 20, 1991 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the site plan review amendment to amend the signage plan for the Medical Arts Building. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Steve Hanson dated May 3, 1989. 2 . Staff report and City Council minutes dated May 30, 1990. 3 . Reduced signage plan dated April 14, 1989. 4 . Reduced signage plan dated April 18, 1989. 5. Approved location of signage as part of site plan review. 6. Proposed directory sign. 7 . Proposed identification sign. 8 . City Council minutes dated June 4, 1990. , r 1 1 I I 1 1 CITY OF If AN A EN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' FROM: Steve Hanson, Planning Director DATE: May 3, 1989 rSUBJ: Preliminary Plat Approval and Site Plan Review of Final Facia, Signage, Exterior Building Lighting and Revised ' Sidewalk and Parking Layout Configuration for Chanhassen Professional Building The Planning Commission at its April 19, 1989 meeting approved the preliminary plat for the north side parking lot subject to the plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" . ' Regarding the site plan approval, the Planning Commission recom- mended approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , . 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1 . No business may have more than one wall sign. ' 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. This motion was approved on a 4 to 3 vote. ' The Planning Commission discussion 'bn the site plan centered on three issues. The first of those was the sidewalk extending from ' Heritage Park Apartments across- th'e parking lot in the direction of the clock tower. Generally, the Commission felt that addi- tional signage or definition of this pedestrian crossing through the parking area should be added. Concern is that small children using the crosswalk would not be visible due to cars parked on either side of the crosswalk. They requested that this be looked at closer by traffic engineering. Therefore, I have contacted BRW and requested that they be in attendance at the Council meeting on May 22, 1989 to address this particular issue. 11 Don Ashworth May 3, 1989 Page 2 The second item of concern deals with the entrance and the adjusted parking configuration by the Riviera. There was a pre- ference expressed for the access as it comes in to allow a- right • turn into the first bay of parking along the professional building rather than having to go all the way to the back of the parking lot to get into that parking. The adjusted configuration was arrived at after meeting with the Kruegers, owners of the Riviera. A copy of a memo from Fred Hoisington summarizing this meeting is attached to this memorandum (Attachment #6) . It should be noted that this particular adjustment to the parking is in Phase II and the approval at this time would be for the parking configuration for Phase I. The third issue that was raised by Commissioner Batzli was the ' same concern he had raised when this item was before the Planning Commission previously. That issue is the need for the access west of Great Plains Boulevard on West 78th Street. His feelings are that this access should be closed and that allowing it to remain in this vicinity only complicates the traffic flow at the intersection by the clock tower. 1 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary 1 plat for the north side parking lot based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" . Further, staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. ' Attachments 1. April 19, 1989 Planning Commission minutes. 2. Preliminary plat for the north side parking lot. 3. Revised parking lot layout. 4 . Final facia and signage plans. 5. April 19, 1989 staff report. 6 . Memo from Fred Hoisington dated May 8, 1989. I 1 I i 1 4 TY O F 1.... ...ATE: May 5, 1990 I �� i C11AHASEI CC DATE: May 30, 1990 k\..1 . '---- CASE #: 90- Sign 1 STAFF REPORT 1 . - PROPOSAL: 1. Sign Proposal for Chanhassen Professional Building I 2 . Site Plan Amendment F. Q LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Great Plains and West 78 •: Stzeet_; V - Intersection 1 -� ti,--- • • A APPLICANT: Brad Johnson r: _ 1 Lotus Realty _�•1 �-� ' Q Box 730 j'<•;:.s;'h;'� c. '• ,. Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 , I IPRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: 1 DENSITY: Q ADJACENT ZONING AND 1 '... LAND USE: N - PUD; Heritage Apartments Q S - CBD; commercial E - CBD; commercial 1 W - CBD; commercial Ill WATER AND SEWER: Available 1 in PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Property is level and developed. I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial II II I Medical Arts Centel. Sign Request May 2, 1990 Page 2 BACKGROUND I On May 22, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary plat and site plan approval for the Medical Arts Building (Attachment #1) . The site plan review was approved with the revised site plan and final facia, signage and external lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" . One of the conditions of approval was that no business may have more than one wall sign as is regulated ' with the Sign Ordinance. The approved final facia included five backlit sign bands, 3 on the south and 2 on the north side of the building (Attachment #2) . ' ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting approval to allow tenants in the Chanhassen Professional Building more than one wall sign. The applicants are not requesting any additional sign bands beyond what was approved with the original plan but are requesting that 2 of the sign bands be used for 1 occupant. The Medical Arts Center is occupying the easterly portion of the Chanhassen Professional Building. They are requesting a certificate of occupancy on Friday, April 27th, and will be opening for business on Monday, April 30th. The tenants are requesting that they be allowed to use the sign band on both the south and north side of the building. Technically, the sign ordinance allows an occupant of the building only one wall sign per street frontage. The subject site has only one street frontage along West 78th Street, but access to the building is primarily from the north side where the parking area is located. Staff originally was requiring the applicant to go through a variance to the sign ordinance and an amendment to the site plan for the Chanhassen Professional Building. In meeting with the applicant, it was found that the applicant was only requesting the ability to use the approved sign bands as designed by the tenant. Since additional signage was not requested, staff is comfortable with allowing tenants of the building to use the number of approved sign bands on both the north and south side for their business identification. The intent of the ordinance requiring business occupants to not have more than one wall sign per street frontage was to limit the amount of signage on buildings. Again, since additional signage will not result by the applicant's request, staff is comfortable with allowing them to use two of the five sign bands for one occupant. Staff made it clear to the applicant that this would be only allowed with the understanding that additional wall sign bands would not be permitted in the future should they allow both sides of the sign bands to used by the larger occupants and not have wall signs left for smaller tenants who rent space at a later date. The applicant agreed to this condition. In summary, staff feels that what has been proposed by the applicant is consistent with the zoning ordinance and site plan 1 1 Medical Arts Center Sign Request May 2, 1990 Page 3 INumber of Sign Bands ' The site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council was the plan dated April 14, 1989. These plans show 3 sign bands on the south side of the building and 2 sign bands on the north side of the building. The Planning file also contains plans dated April 18, 1989, and these plans show 5 sign bands on the south side and 5 sign bands on the north side of the building. The April 14, 1989, plan is the one that was officially approved by the ' Planning Commission and City Council and is stamped the "Official Copy". ' In discussions with the applicant, it became apparent that they were under the impression that they had approval for 5 sign bands on both the north and south sides of the building. Staff reviewed the reports going to the Planning Commission and Council and all ' the corresponding minutes. The report that was presented to the Planning Commission by Steve Hanson referred to the April 14, 1989, plans as did the City Council report. There is no mention in any of the reports or other information in the file of the site plan being approved for the 5 signs on both the north and south sides. ' What has been a common occurrence with the development downtown, such as with the hotel site, is that plans are submitted after approval that have changes within them that have not been brought to staff's attention. The applicant believes that staff was aware of the change for 5 sign bands on both sides of the building and that the Planning Commission and or City Council did approve of this change. Again, staff cannot find any mention where it was ' brought up that the number of sign bands changed from a total of 5 to a total of 10. In the April 19, 1990, Planning Commission minutes, there is some mention of the number of sign bands needing to be discussed but this was not done. The applicant (Arvid Ellness) mentioned plans submitted on Friday which was April 14, 1989. Obviously, the applicant feels that the 10 sign bands were approved and that is what they wish to install into the facade of the building. Staff feels that the 5 sign facade that had been approved is what should be maintained. In reviewing elevations of both plans, staff feels that the 3 sign bands on the south and the 2 on the north side are more appropriate for an office building. The elevation showing 5 sign bands on both the north and south side which provides signage almost directly across the total facade of the building is more appropriate for a shopping mall but not for an office building. ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission, on a vote of 4 to 3, approved 5 signs on the north side and 5 signs on the south side of the building, for a total of 10 signs for the Chanhassen Medical Center with the I I Medical Arts CenteL Sign Request May 2, 1990 Page 4 condition that there be no more than one business name per sign , ban. STAFF UPDATE - May 25, 1990 , The applicant has submitted documentation which shows that amended plans were submitted to staff which had shown 5 wall signs on both the north and south side of the building (Attachment #8) . During the Planning Commission meeting, Ladd Conrad (Chairman) recalled approving 5 wall signs on both the north and south side. Therefore, it appears the amended plans may have been what was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Since the minutes and staff report do not specifically address the plan with 5 wall signs on the south and north side of the building, staff wanted the Planning Commission and City Council to understand what was being proposed and to verify this is what was/and is approved. I RECOMMENDATION The City Council must decide whether or not the 3 sign bands on the II south and the 2 signs bands on the north should be the number of sign bands maintained. Should the City Council feel that they would prefer ' to have the 5 sign bands on both the north and south sides, then they should formally approve the amended plan as shown on plans dated April 18, 1989. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report dated April 19, 1989. , 2 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 1989. 3. Memo from Steve Hanson dated May 3, 1989. 4. City Council minutes dated May 22, 1989. 5. Reduced copies of site plan dated April 14, 1989. 6. Reduced copies of site plan dated April 18, 1989. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated May 2, 1990. 8. Letter from Arvid Elness Architects dated May 4, 1990. , 1 i r 1 I 11 ii . . .r ITY O F . DATE: April 19, 1989 II `• �� C.C. : 89M7 I C H 8, 1989 NHSS E N CASE IIPrepared by: Hanson/v II STAFF REPORT I . IPROPOSAL: A) Preliminary Plat Approval B) Site Plan Review of Final Facia Signage and Exterior I Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking Z Layout Configuration IV LOCATION: North of West 78th Street and East of 480 West 78th J Street 1 0 7- APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Q P.O. Box 100 IIChanhassen, MN 55317 II PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District IACREAGE: IIDENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-12; proposed Heritage Park Apartments I S- CBD; commercial ercial use I etr- - E- CBD; commercial use 0 I !. , W- CBD; commercial use W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available I & PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is level il2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial _-= North Side Parking Lot April 19 , 1989 Page 2 , The site plan for this area, which is the location of the Chanhassen Professional Building was approved by the City Council at the February 27 , 1989, meeting. That approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. Platting the area. , 2. Submittal of final facia, signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. 4. Direct staff to have the consultants review the intersection ' to see if there is any possible alternatives and if possible have a modified alternative by March 13th. Since that time the plat has been prepared for the property. The plat creates two building sites around West 78th Street and outlots generally to the rear of those two buildable lots for the parking areas that will serve these buildings. The site plan has been amended to modify the location on the pro- perty on the west end near the Riviera. These amendments were done in order to improve the parking situation for the Riviera Restaurant. In addition, the sidewalk locations were evaluated on the east end of the proposed Chanhassen Professional Building. It was felt the best alternative was to align the sidewalk from the apartment building in a generally direct alignment with the clock tower. Then also a pedestrian link was made from that area over to Colonial Center. In evaluating means for making the pedestrian crossings through the parking area visible, it was determined the best solution was to put in large cross walk painted areas lined up with landscaped features between parking stalls. It was felt that the use of speed bumps in the parking lot would not improve the situation for these cross access ways and that stop signs would be inappropriate in these locations. Pedestrian signs could be added to emphasize where the cross walks are. The City Council asked staff to evaluate the access at the inter- 1 section of West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard. In looking at this, no other alternatives were identified other than eliminating this particular access. This access was a negotiated item with the property owners in the area as part of the overall redevelopment of this entire area. The Engineering Department has indicated this access, while not the most ideal situation, is acceptable from an operational standpoint. 11 North Side Parking Lot April 19, 1989 Page 3 The applicants have sumitted facia, signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission review. The applicants arepro- posing one free standing identification sign of 20 square feet to be located at the southwest corner of the building in Phase I. ' This sign will be 3 ' 6" in height. On the back side a free standing directory sign is proposed to be 4 '6" high and 3 ' 6" across. On the face of the building back lit sign bands are pro- posed over three of the entrances these are 36 square feet in size. On the south elevation another sign band of the same size is shown in the middle of the building. The signage proposed complies with the zoning requirements, provided that no occupant ' may have more than one wall sign. The plans note only one light to be located in the patio area. No other exterior lighting is proposed on the exterior of the 11 building. The other site lighting is part of the parking lot improvements being done by the city. The proposed facia of the building is to be woodlap and shakertown siding, with ornamental grille work and railings on teh entrance features. The roof is to be asphalt shingles. Previously the entrance features were goint to be brick. No colors have been listed on the plans. The door and window materials are not noted. These should not be aluminum finish. 1 RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" . The Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised site ' plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3. Pedestrian signs be added to cross walks in parking lot. ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Preliminary plat. 2. Site plan for north side parking lot. 3 . Site plan for Phase I Chan Professional Building. 4. Elevations for Phase I Chan Professional Building. I 1 Planning Commission Meeting I April 19, 1989 - Page 20 1 something like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes, that's a PUD? 1 Batzli : I think if they were to. . .Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little. . . I think parking's a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it' s on a ' slope. . . Ellson: I can picture it. . . 1 Conrad: Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? Emmings : Yes . 1 Conrad : And those are. . .what you discussed? Emmings: Yes they are. 1 Conrad : . . .you don' t think the developer could never achieve? 1 Emmings: I would like to see them move this project . . . If Lot 14 doesn' t have any development. If we lower some density. I don' t know what can be moved. . . The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the size of the apartment building . I'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced . - 1 Conrad : I guess you've heard that we haven' t ruled the PUD out. There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on. The numbers in certain cases look really great to me. I could go with a PUD. Therefore, I guess what we' re saying, the consensus would be, other than Dave. Headla: I 'd like to see the portion. . . Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can muddle through some of the comments that we made. Work with you and see if you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us. Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. I B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. I 1 I IPlanning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 21 r ' Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: I want to just say a couple comments then Arvid Elness is here from Arvid Elness and Company. This will be the first, I don' t know r if you guys have seen the color rendering. This is the apartment building in the back and that' s the. . .we' re proposing on this part right here. Then Phase 2. . . At the request of the City we dropped Phase 3 here as part of our program. . . That gives you an idea . I 've asked Arvid to address, the signage issue I guess I want to talk about too. The signs are kind of. . . We need the signs permitted by the ordinance. . . It' s back lit. It's that ban, what do you call it. If you look at something like IGelco . That sign. That kind of sign that we've got a dark opaque feeling and the letters are cut into that opaque. Arvid can address facia. . . IArvid Elness : I ' ll just make a couple points . This is the soffit plan. Two things that were addressed here. . . We did a number of studies and I guess our feeling architecturally had to do. . .one is a matter of. . . The second is the fact that these elements are standing out in front of this building and I feel personally that they shouldn' t be distinguished as a feature or element that is different than the main building. I think it will look like a simple building with some large brick high risers here IIstanding and the facade standing out in front of it with a change of naterial . I notice the material used on that free standing element that stand out in front of it will characterize the theme of what should have ' proper materials and should feel like they' re integrated in the design so our thinking is to take the same materials that we' re using. . .so this element here looks like a part of this building and not distinguish it as ' something different. In doing that, the materials of the main building are like lap siding . They're cedar lap siding and cedar shakes on the upper part and then our color ban that will wrap around the building. So in doing that we just brought those materials forward and put them on the IIfront here. . .because this is really a free standing sort of spacial form out in front and it creates a shadow. Creates some interest and also gives us the opportunity to put some identification on there. Brad asked Iwhat the signage said. . .we're talking about. We did some studies as to ways we could do it on a professional type building and I think the. . .was that it was because part of the design of the building integrated and was well controlled. . .color ban of the building or could be used to introduce IIsome backing . Then it sort of looked like part of the archtectural. . . So it's sort of designed and integrated into the building and to have. . .as opposed to a more commercial type brackets of signage where there's a certain amount of freedom through the signage to create an identity and II mark. . .so I think we' re comfortable that with the bannage system that goes above the entry at eye level . . . The problem with the drawings was that we Isubmitted Friday without identifying what we had agreed to as the quantity of the potential site. . . So the two issues I have I guess are the choice of materials on the exterior of the building and I think that's in character with what I 'm seeing in Chanhassen at this point and what's 1 aappening around town. These are materials that are very common place. . . Brad Johnson: What about the lighting? 11 r Planning Commission Meeting I April 19, 1989 - Page 22 1 Arvid Elness : Then the City has some lighting plans that we looked at for our standard ones that were going on the street. . . The lighting for the parking is taken care of on the plan. What we tried to do beyond that is because this element which stands out in front of the main building has sort of a void, a space between it' s. . .we put standard lights on the back side of these high risers that stand out here so at night each one of these main areas will be lit indirectly to the back side so they' ll glow with it's own light. Then the city standards out there with the light. . . So we' ll do some architectural lighting as we call it in these areas and every place they refer around the building. We' ll probably put some light in the cupola on the roof up here. . . Those are the lighting ideas that we have. Signage I 've explained. The sign ban. . . ' Conrad: Anything else? Emmings moved , Elison second to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla : I have no problems with the signage. . . .The sidewalk there. I foresee that to be a . . . That' s the way I look at it. I 'm concerned about the skateboards coming down there, whatever . Are we putting up traffic signs or parking signs? Hanson: No. We' re not proposing to put speed limit signs . Conrad: I think everybody's going to have the same kind of questions. , Steve, maybe you can help us on this, or Brad. The last time this was in, we were concerned where the sidewalk ran across the traffic. . . We talked about speed bumps. We talked about signs . You eliminated the speed bumps. You eliminated the signs and basically what you've done is painted the walk so can you give us more rationale for that? Hanson: I personally don't see that as a problem. . .look at from a traffic standpoint and their recommendation was striping was more than adequate. . . Speed in the parking lot is not that bad and we should be able to. . . bringing those islands out and creating parking stalls lets you know there's something happening there and we can put in pedestrian crossing signs. In my opinion, that's what we can do and that' s. . . Conrad: Are they going to, the pedestrian traffic, are they going to go through this or are they going to go around? Are there other sidewalks that they' re going to use? I Hanson: I think some of the traffic will go around that way. The other question, if somebody's walking, why are they walking in there? I can see them walking . . .Kenny's Market to buy groceries and then carry them back. . . Headla: I 'm not concerned about people carrying groceries. I 'm concerned about young people on skateboards and bicycles. If you've ever had an office by a window on the second or third story or higher above a parking lot. Haveyou ever noticed those speeders in the parking lot? It' s atrocious the way they can speed. I 've been hit in a parking lot. . . It 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 23 happens. All the rationale sa ' pp says it shouldn' t, there are speeders . . . I simply can not believe. . . I want to see something to make that sidewalk IIsafer . Wildermuth: I had a problem with the sidewalk. . . 1 Batzli: Did I miss something or isn't the lighting of the building going to be. . .? Brad Johnson: It' s all provided by the City as part of the parking lot so it's part of your site plan. IIHanson: The other lighting was what the architect had mentioned . . . Brad Johnson: I don' t have a lighting plan because the lighting plan is IIthe parking lot plan that BRW put out. Batzli : The access here, the left area . . .access east. . . That' s the one I talked about last time. . . Ellson: I don' t like the. . .parking . . .juts around . I agree with Dave. I think the thing that bugs me most about all this is, we naturally II think. . .then it stops and then you've got this distance open but this goes right through and there are parking places on this side and parking places on this side and there' s a sidewalk in the middle. Normally a person on ' the sidewalk is hidden behind two cars until they get out in there and I . . . and I don' t like that. I think there should be speed bumps, stop signs . . . ' Emmings: I have the same reservation. I essentially feel that. . . I don't have any problem with anything except the sidewalk directing traffic . . . What Dave says about kids on skateboards and little kids II walking, they can walk out between two parked cars. If they're 3 1/2 feet or shorter , the driver doesn' t have a chance to see them and they don' t have a chance to see the car. You' re creating a situation where I think I it' s. . .driving down streets, you' re always thinking about kids coming out between cars. It's happened to me. I didn't hit them but other people have and we're creating that situation. I think maybe widening it out. Eliminate some of the parking spaces on each side of that sidewalk. . .sight ' lines, that would help. Having a painted crosswalk I think would be, I think that's what we asked before. To me that's essential. I 'd put stop signs there. . . .stop at that sidewalk at least until I was absolutely satisfied through it's use that the traffic on the sidewalk didn't warrant stop signs . I 'd start with that and then make them prove that it wasn' t necessary. Then we'd just have. . . IITim Erhart' s discussion could not be heard on the tape. Conrad: . . .yet from the apartment building standpoint, they're going IIco. . . It's probably going to be there. It' s fairly straight. I'd have to go along with Steve. I think it may be a little bit of overkill but I think it should have some kind of signage. That's my only comments. I like the lighting. I like the signage. Is there a motion? I guess we 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 24 I have to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. Is there a motion? ' Ellson moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Emmings: I guess I was a little confused about what exactly. . . was the preliminary plat? . . .sidewalk issue. Hanson: The sidewalk issue is part of the site plan. That was the first document. . . ' Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stampted "Received April 14, 1989" . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad : Is there a motion for the site plan? Headla: . . .1989 with the following recommendations. The three listed. 1 The first two. Pedestrian signs be added to crosswalks . I 'd like to go to number 3 on the opposite page. Traffic engineer should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. Conrad : Is there a second? The motion fails for lack of second. Is I there another motion? Erhart: I' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on the plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" with the conditions, number 1 as is. Number 2 as is. Number 3, did you start out by saying what? Headla: It's on the opposite page there. Number 3. , Erhart: Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning 11 the sidewalk and adding stop signs. And item number 4, to review the west access to increase access to the area for . . . To review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. . . Hanson: Is the intent to try and get the access coming back towards the. ..? I 'm just trying to clarify that. Zmmings: Did the Public Safety Director and Fire Department review this I/ • plan for the access? They did? Conrad: Is there a second to Tim's motion? I I 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 25 I Elison: I' ll second it. I Erhart moved , Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions: II1. No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior . II3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of .1 realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs . 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. II Erhart, Elison , Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor of the motion. Batzli , Conrad and Emmings voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. II3atzli : My reason is, I still don' t like the eastern entrance to the south. The eastern most southern entrance. IIEmmings: It just emphasizes the sidewalk issue. I can' t approve the plan the way it is . IIPUBLIC HEARING: COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET IAND MARKET BOULEVARD, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL, IIINTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD. B. REZONING A PORTION OF BG DISTRICT TO CBD DISTRICT LOCATED BETWEEN MARKET BOULEVARD AND LOT 4, CHANHASSEN MALL. IIC. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 80 UNIT HOTEL. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the above three items. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order on the Preliminary Plat is and Rezoning issue. • II Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. IIEmmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 11, 1989" with the following conditions: I CITY TF t .101 CHANHASSEN 11 kr,,,W „dr 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Steve Hanson, Planning Director ' DATE: May 3, 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Approval and Site Plan Review of Final Facia, Signage, Exterior Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking Layout Configuration for Chanhassen Professional Building The Planning Commission at its April 19, 1989 meeting approved I the preliminary plat for the north side parking lot subject to the plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" . Regarding the site plan approval, the Planning Commission recom- , mended approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14 , 1989" subject to the following conditions : 1. No business may have more than one wall sign. , 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety with the possibi- lity of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. , This motion was approved on a 4 to 3 vote. The Planning Commission discussion on the site plan centered on three issues. The first of those was the sidewalk extending from Heritage Park Apartments across. the parking lot in the direction of the clock tower. Generally, ,the Commission felt that addi- tional signage or definition of this pedestrian crossing through the parking area should be added. Concern is that small children using the crosswalk would not be visible due to cars parked on either side of the crosswalk. They requested that this be looked at closer by traffic engineering. Therefore, I have contacted BRW and requested that they be in attendance at the Council meeting on May 22, 1989 to address this particular issue. I I Don Ashworth May 3 , 1989 Page 2 i The second item of concern deals with the entrance and the adjusted parking configuration by the Riviera. There was a pre- ference expressed for the access as it comes in to allow a right turn into the first bay of parking along the professional building rather than having to go all the way to the back of the 11 parking lot to get into that parking. The adjusted configuration was arrived at after meeting with the Kruegers, owners of the Riviera. A copy of a memo from Fred Hoisington summarizing this. ' meeting is attached to this memorandum (Attachment #6) . It should be noted that this particular adjustment to the parking is in Phase II and the approval at this time would be for the parking configuration for Phase I . The third issue that was raised by Commissioner Batzli was the same concern he had raised when this item was before the Planning Commission previously. That issue is the need for the access west of Great Plains Boulevard on West 78th Street. His feelings are that this access should be closed and that allowing it to remain in this vicinity only complicates the traffic flow at the intersection by the clock tower. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the north side parking lot based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" . Further, staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. April 19 , 1989 Planning Commission minutes. 2. Preliminary plat for the north side parking lot. 3. Revised parking lot layout. 4. Final facia and signage plans. 5. April 19, 1989 staff report. 6. Memo from Fred Hoisington dated May 8, 1989. r I 1 r il City Council Meeting - 1 22, 1989 II ir 7. Provide the addition of 2 more Linden trees on the landscape plan. IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor. The motion was specifically d(1) . Did not II include d(2) . Mayor Chmiel: It was my understanding covering as it was mentioned making both I of those 1 and 2. Councilman Boyt: I would approval of item d(2) . I Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan Review for a 6 and 8 unit townhame building for South Lotus Villas Townhomes. All IIvoted in favor and the motion carried. 40) . 5 H. NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-17. II Councilman Workman: I believe the last time that we discussed this as a council • the primary concern that we had was the south exit onto TH 101 or West 78th • coming out by the clock tower. I did talk to Gary today briefly. I guess I II �f1 would just like to bring it up before the Council. I know Gary Ehret is here _ also. Maybe get some more comments. The Planning Commission didn't look at • that aspect of it again? Brian Batzli: I made a comment but everyone else seemed satisfied with it. Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like comments from the Council then as far as II how they feel that south exit is. Councilman Johnson: I'll start on that. I'll basically- make the same comment I II made last time. As you can read in here, they did a lot of negotiation with the property owners that are paying for these improvements, that are being assessed for their improvements and the only way they will submit to giving that property , to their, it's their property. They own it. They are going to deed it to the City at no cost and then they're going to pay to have it upgraded at their cost and they need that access according to their businesses. Take that access away, II they're going to retract their offer to sell us the land, from what I read here. Then we've got no parking lot. No medical building. Nb development. Councilman Workman: Are you saying they're threatening us Jay? I Councilman Johnson: That's the tone I get out of here. They didn't threaten. That's basically the agreement we made with them for this parking lot and if°we change the agreement, go back on the agreement, they have the right to do that. Then we'll have to go into condemnation to condemn their land and buy it from them to do the same thing. In condemnation they may win the same argument anyway. II 15 1 .__._I City Council Meeting - M- 12, 1989 II Councilman Workman: So Jay then you're saying you're fully in favor of this ' egress at least coming out at that intersection? Councilman Johnson: I believe that for the people who have been there, businessmen in our community for a long time, they deserve their parking lot to ' be convenient for their businesses. They would like a full right turn, left turn. tide negotiated down to a right turn in and right turn out only. It's not the best thing in the world but the engineers say it's safe and it's a lot 11 better than it is now because now it's ridiculous because people try to take that left turn in there. Now they won't be able to turn left into that so it's going to be an improvement over the current situation but it's not going to be as good as I want it. That's what I think is the most reasonable, the best ' compromise to do. We have to live with those businessmen too. We can't just put them out of business. So that's where I sit. Is that it's a reasonable compromise. Mayor Chmiel: Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have any concerns. Councilman Boyt: I find it interesting how we get ourselves into these situations of where we, on the one hand we have business interests who very much 11 want that way in and out of their property. On the other hand we have the citizens who are going to drive through that intersection and I'm just sure they're not going to be pleased but I think as Jay mentioned, it's kind of part ' of the deal and though we may not be happy with it, I think we will be happy with the medical arts center. So although I was opposed to this, I'm willing to _ accept it. I think it's the best compromise we're going to get. Mayor Chmiel: Basically from what both of you have said and I sort of agree with each of those. I think the accessibility has to be there too for the businesses. We may not be happy with what's there but I think it's the best ' thing we can have right now. I think Bill mentioned that. Councilman Workman: Okay, I guess I'd just like to say I'm totally for the businessman in the city. I in no way, shape or form want to, as I've said before, there's many other options for people to spend their money rather than downtown Chanhassen I'd rather see here. We in the past have made a mistake I think on that corner by the clock tower and I think we're adding a little bit more of a mistake to it. If we have an opportunity to fix it. I sincerely believe that it is going to create a problem if they do not have that access there but I think nonetheless and I guess I want to go on record as saying I ' think it's going to create a problem there. I know that TH 101 is going to be moved eventually so traffic should be reduced in that area but I still have concerns. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project #87-17: a. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Approval for the Medical Arts Building b. Resolution #89-70: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 16 I 1 iiilil till 1111M1 i Iiii111 iiii 0 1 .. = ;II • / - la 4 # 4 1.1731- I * I te,.. I 1- ' V' - . . , . liirmilure -11 . . 11,. :: 1 : I 7.1. I ::: .II • I 1 IMIii ik 1W111 I I:i1 I :::: 1 i = II 111 .1! i I• i '11, IIIIM-Amon: ii ;if I. 1 1 11. 117---- li • .. .. . 11 1 :::: : 41,11- W ' • ::: .....0.1 a :::: I, :,.? - I 1 - ::: Wild,.!ill i i%Mill I ...,ft• r . 1:j1111B1;;It''•'Wilt:MAW FE •lt .. t ./14 Fni,., ;I F!Mr! till 1;13;!::: 1: 1 :196;111,', • . _ /HI ;, •_." •..- '1■..'t.1 . ,.,-4 i ill 11.mi,X 4.1 . •i.aiiiii!..: ...t , ... i.,.. -1,1,ii-n, --• .II, --, 6wy-t. .,1;:: sl,.:; "„ii T.'„MCC! 4r:4:::is?El '''' :;511111; s*4 4"..: •r ;i..:i.:i' iili 111:1*141::! ,.i V.-'1:•- 44 r1/1:111:iI!:::111--.::1 ..,._7 : I 1•:. i.;--:'::!--z-,. ji 11.1.....- - .j, •; • -*.,•:,imiNto1.!1liiiInim.ilh -s 1.- •" ... . C. 1 1p; Ili 1111110I ! ..41 • ... i ' : , .... • .. I; f : .r . ••ea. ••O. I .,I• ; . 4::. i:i: Plinlii! 1 mu I .11 .E0_, , — 1,-. 22 n let IL•411..!..!. 4. "IIIM.wilAP ER101;:: : 1. • 1 *: • If ;;;;,,11ii=1... '-;4:1 I; • .1 • , . -. - ,..• 1,1 vg...r-,,:,,.:.,....!.., ,, ..... tit. .... 1 ID 11:74- • 1, .. • :- i = I Ai! , 11 .,.. ..At _ I .. . , t4 - . rs! ' I" Vv. ..-:.. -,.! ,. It •\-: -:-:! .:: -11 - . • ,-, . . . i • "..4.• ' .• N ,• *FE '. ..... . - I at I ® ' 'Ilt ..e."'""*.. I I • '4 • • - • . I ' ' I • I, I I it 1 .-J 1 * tiEl ,, ., „ ., . ._ :I I 1 - I 4:1 m " ......1 1 ^C 11! '... (3) I 1 I ... .s . i iii i . il I —III -14; • !WI 'i1 '1 (il I-ri l iii t '3[him il L___ I 1 : I I • - I.III 41 , • , — _ i III 11 . - ..._ 1 • : . . - :::: - I ti 1 . 1...,!1, it o 1 I 0 • si II • I ill .. ve 1' i I I 1 I I I tO i- ' I i - I .. 11 I, i I i. • I 1 : .....i . . 11 I • ". - t i i.: ,.. .\I -- S 4 ....1 1 ,-.4', I t ' 1 1, ,9 . t ,..' . II ...,. 9 ,■ I' '.. 6 ., . ... a - - - .hc Jyr.die 1' I aL. ,N. ' I I i %az) El .%. 'PAC, ii . . .. 11 g , . I ' -- "- c•- - I - • ..- .,. ' • •• . . t . I .. Et ,.. • . , - • •• -. • ' t mi roil , . . .. , ..•. . . ...• 1 .. i .... • . mml iiiimi 1 , . , i 1, .. • ,.„ • ..,..‘• • • ...... i • I 1• :Z::, 1[1=4: 1 1 1 • 'min I , 1 %.•••...,,,.... :::: 1 I.::: . I ,1 1 ' IMP! i 1111inill i II.:-„. • • ' 1 Tl'4, i 1 ::::1.1,. :::: . •/ . ., Ma••• i ••■•■• III I.."' 1 'I . •f•Z '.1 . l•' .. .. 141: . • I - • •' ' iti 31.0.1191;1:111;:lt■ 1 ::. ..."-.....' ■.,'1.!.f.11.':t•,f:j. I•I - ., , i ■ • It g ■ 1 ••• •:.. • .r. . ....... !.. ..,.". '. .,,, .. y; ,• 1—--II 1 •,..c.-, . ;:. . . •• ••.•• - •-Moats.al ••••Ii: ::::1 . ii•• k;: . • 4. , ..,.. ,. ....• -411 • 1:; :. 111, •••.! i :;:: ..•'..A. •---11" ' .7e• - I; , -• li ..'. : •Et 1:---r-•,- .. ".. . - , „.•... .T., s..1-:.• • , .0 •" ,,1, ,19 r.311V, f. , ,. ;■,. ,, (..._,... ... ‘. ... . •, -4, ••,..• . •,..,... ..,,,...,. ..„, :•, , , ,, .',11 ::-INA:- -, 31629__ __..4 r-----...,..; ..,. ., ,...„..„....,.... ,..I ...•- .-,,--, ..:-•:-.M...T...,..::7,:- :'.•:!.•.:.::„.,..1..;.. , .1„1 1 I I -:.- ...A-.-.=.p,-::...,4••s 4......;..„..^..,..,.. I ' 1 1.1 I 1 0 IN OM - 1 :::.; ! :.I. z;;;.. 1'. Mill ! ” 1 • ft..- .., , Ma k 11:::: ;11(1,11:410M 4 ma.. . ..... I • 1'.; .== II . •::= I 1'1 i"414 :..'■.-...!!".. I j I ..-0, ...: 1; 1 NJ • 1%!■ . -:::-:-- - •:, =:. ,,i VI ‘-- ■j 7--- 1 .' :2:: ' ' 1 C• 'I . •sg ' ' i 1 I I ^... 111 . , \ i -- -- 1 0 0 0 0 0 ........--- N s i 1 I 1 ,1 ® I li i i., ,, i.11 I ill 0 I ® 1 I ® 1 1 i I 1 1 ; ® ‘.%.•1. 1 '' -41 1 17- ) 11441 II II. _.■:, i f t, .._ N I ill s iil 'i -, -1 t I 1 L.,7 q :Fgon _I,li 4 . I .... 4 1111_11 it il I 11 4 1 II PR I ,2, II I III it --4.4 . . I E 1 0 •ti 1, t 1 1 0 k. 1 i • I I I :11 I IS I I I I i . 1 I t :. 1 — 1 I 4 I ® , i . . 1111. 1.6 . . . ..r.. - . "C.- — - • . I I I 112 1. 2 1 .11' . . 4 .i. ION 111141;141 1 1 it I I . . .... ...41 8411 =a.: • ::—III. II 1 I 1 -III' HIM WM . 1 _ _. 1 . ii I 1, . III Ifflii IIUM ;-4:i i 1 4 6— --- Tclit % ::„ .... :: , 1.., I II Iii -0, Ai 1 or I 11! j 11 ' 1 :::: MR!!! 1 MUM _.ith_t i c7- II i :I lifiliipplii wipl..7 'I , Al 'II•:!! i :: IA .1 :: r .... .-.. e • 166 WM 06 __Iii 14 luttalg 141.::;;Iili I 1111E11111 :-.• ,... ...... 011.41 I I q 00 ..r.r. ; . .m. __rill:::-.. i _;;!::101! !.:::: imij 10,:. t •Iili III d----Mi ■1 II ,S II –II Ili:::;.!..4±..”'-,1 ::1• -. ;-.-1! --,, ..,::EllmIltl III 1111111111 a 1 : RIM MVP.; *--4 I:::: 1 I t .s. --- . --t 2 ; I B.... ;• 1 I . , !!-■ . .•••• ;•, i 1.•-•,,1 ''':': ! il ; =6.. 1. .; , !!! 8 • ,. •••• , i,11 ••••;,, =II 1 08 NM!I; a I : : • ::: r 1 •••• 1 d , , Ur i1iF - 11 I, -A 1 t ' I S I 1 .1 1 1 1 lc t . I 1 1 - I 1 ® i t . . . . :I i.•7 .i I t, ID I Cii) i 1 ,1 L.1- 1 ■ • . t 7•34t111,111111 ; . • . , i ' 1 ' ® . I ® t s — — ..: . f / W " Fil, '`:- " I . -"IF" a -41 t 1 e .... 1, -;t,''.: 1 9...:: 1 ' t 0' n ® I 1 It I i B ;; 1 NM ma I - MI .....1: • :3 • I/ i ' 4 !no !lift .-1; ,t.i. 1 1. i Pik' i lam 'I tr. 11.!L. . • i! , 4 ',71:,.•7."-:•11: I . _ _I. • 1r Ifl i i , -.a 18• t- . :,,,..4 , ': 1••?- „,..i , ;, , w, . .•-....4."- 1 . 1 iim - .... .... .•_. ,( i E t I e I 1 - 1 1 . ...-• N \ I 1 ■0; 9!" I ill IS ,. 0 . . ., 1 0 :: p II, _,.. I \ 3 ill' 1 ----i- t ■C. ) 1\ 1 1 1.. , 1111 I t'.9 • .11' I L I . . . 1 . I I , -. % / / I / 1■1 = r 1_ 1 „ 1 . / .1 .-..i.1 a. 124.1E I / X • --; •• k lk I . t ,i ■ .:. 1 11- 1 t / 1 11-:7:i === '....4.. • i I i \ •.-z.. ■•.i ;• •. ca --1, 1 \ • ■•. ' 1 ingt 44. : E. affill 7/ • . .=I 3 -- E.-- 1 .. I otT, --- . 3 / ... : - _...., ••„„. -.., , I ..... ...,..., , , . , ; • / • Re7 ii Cli el I I I 4111* II ‘ illLa .-- !•,, .. .-..1, 4 ... ..-. i I craiiill -4: 1 II l I ..... ..-f. -.-.— i i ..s.::::: L. cm, 1 ,, u r,_ 1 oar .„ ,. I i , nEwl OIT. maTM I g•T 701.0111 I /1!; Mo. i I i ;II r". \ p , ■ ' i .- t ii:•.! EE a •TPII ....... , , I 1 manor -1" i 1 i I, 1 " -' •••••• 1, U I 1■ i .. I • r e.• r 4. a 1_ e C I I V. I I , I . I • .., I . I n .-r's • : - tr. • I - ''' \ ® 0 0 0 \ I --- . 0 I 1 r 1 © 1 I I: 0" , 7 I I I I I r i I t o 1 ® iel I II II -o- lio 4 -) PI 3 1E111 1 t•-.)....) 41 I . . . I.!r4 01 171 111,,Kiftl 1-4 ...... (1 jaiii I flai __! 1l 1_1 I . IC:0 „.... I ; ! i r ir • a hi r I : _...) --v. I o . . .,;. a 1 s .. ; i i ,i , • _... . ,.... t : i r ; 1 "4,.. 0 III US , I , .... . :, , i • I. : I I , I di • j61 ... ..„ ______ ... iroa. _.. .I„, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 1 REGULAR MEETING MAY 2, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m . . ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson , Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens ' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; and Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO HAVE 2 WALL SIGNS AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT " FOR THE CHANHASSEN MEDICAL CENTER LOCATED AT WEST 78TH STREET, BRAD JOHNSON_ Public Present: ' Name Address Brad Johnson Applicant , Lotus Realty ' Bob Mithune Developer John Jacobson , Vice Pres . of Professional Services Ridgeview Medical Center Dan Anderson Manager , Chanhassen Medical Center Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Brad Johnson: I guess what I 'd like to address is the things that Jo Ann II was addressing was primarily that this plan had not been approved by either the Planning Commission or the City Council yet 3 of us were at this meeting where they approved it including Arvid Ellness and we've got records of shipment of plans to here on the 17th to Steve Hanson . The only thing we 're missing is Steve Hanson because he's not here to deal with it 11 because at that time we weren 't dealing with this particular people on the staff . So it 's been our feeling from the very beginning and until what , Friday or Thursday of last week that 5 signs had been approved on both sides . So we 're kind of surprised . Secondly then I think we'd just like II to present it based upon it 's merit and you can reconsider it so that we 'll present our case once more and hopefully it comes out okay. So that 's probably how we 'd like to approach it . We have John Jacobson and. . .from 11 the Clinic . . .and Bob Hoveland who worked with us on the original review . Let us show you where the signs would be located first . This is kind of a big plan of what downtown . . . To get a little history on why the building is where the building is so they'll understand. This is a total plan for II the downtown area . Site plan . Bob Mithune: Hopefully you 're all oriented so just briefly, this is the II Kenny 's and so on , strip center right here . This is the new professional center , office building and this is the existing lawn sports and the Riveria over here . And the Heritage Park apartments are right here . Brad Johnson: Right behind it . 7 Planning Commission Meeting . May 2 , 1990 - Page 2 It Bob Mithune: Originally our first plans that we submitted to the City had this building back here . Right along here and all the parking in front but the City didn 't want that . And the City didn't want it I guess because number one , just like what is going on over on this side of the Riveria . What 's that called? Brad Johnson: Town Square . ' Bob Mithune: And similar to this development and secondly , they thought this would be more like a building in a city . Downtown city that 's right up close to these sidewalks . So we went along with that and what that resulted in is a building with maybe 2 fronts . I think that 's important ' for consideration . Brad Johnson: And where do we place the signs . . . ' Bob Mithune: Well we wanted 5 signs located 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and again on this side , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . Brad Johnson: Now if you 're looking at the building , you can look at the zoning downtown and you can have 15% of the front of a building can be signs from the CBD district on the main street . . .two fronts . This will be the only building in town that would have actually two fronts . It has an ' entrance on the parking lot side and then the other side so we did a quick calculation and we are using 6% of the front of this building so we 're well below the allowed amount of signage that would be on the building and we 've traded , if you read all your ordinances , they want to have a new proposed sign ordinance . I don't think which has passed . They prefer to have a sign ban on the building with a limit of height and everything so you have some control as to where those signs will be so they 're not plastered all over the building so they have some consistency with the building . And this is any building in downtown, we 've always been stuck to that concept - that we should have a sign ban . It also gives us control over what is there . It was the opinion of Fred Hoisington I believe that also this building should have some color and he felt the addition of signs which would be in varying colors potentially, the neon signs, they basically are neon backed signs , would add to the interest in the building itself . I can remember that discussion with Fred. So basically we have the 5 signs on both sides . Basically they 're there to advertise the tenants. This is not an office building as we think of it as a professional services building ' where you 'll have insurance agency and your real estate people, myself , who want to advertise the fact that they 're in the building and they're not , sort of passive . One of the requirements of all our tenants including the ' dentist is that they have some kind of identification on the building because that 's one of the reasons they want this location is because they realize it 's high traffic area . So then the second problem you have is if ' you have signs just in the front and none in the back , people can't identify where they're supposed to go in and relate to what it is so I guess that 's basically our presentation. Both sides are using about 6% of the available frontage for signs . They're on a sign ban. They 're below your ordinance requirements . It is the only building like this in town and finally , was approved once to our way of thinking because we sent the stuff r 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 3 over here and I was standing up here . It just wasn 't an issue at that meeting . Everybody was interested in the control bumps and the traffic , I think you remember that . So I think it just blew right by and Headla said that , he used to sit right there, he said the signs look fine and that 'll was the only comment they said about signs and why did we want . . . I 'll leave it to your discretion . Do you from the clinic want to say anything as far as the need of signs? There seems to be some concern here that businesses don 't need signs such as yourself . Conrad: Any other comments? John Jacobson: These are not all comments that I have . I did have a couple handouts . My name is John Jacobson . I 'm Vice President of Professional Services at Ridgeview Medical Center and I did want to take the opportunity to introduce Dan Anderson who is the clinic manager at Chanhassen Medical Center . Dan just recently joined us and I should say is doing a very excellent job , particularly the last week in getting the clinic moved into a new location . I want to thank the commission for the opportunity tonight to appear before you . As Brad suggested, what we are requesting is allowing the Chanhassen Medical Center and our Business Health Services , which are businesses that are both owned and operated by I Ridgeview Medical Center , to place high quality signage on both sides of the Chanhassen Professional Building . As Brad suggested , we 're really requesting this for a couple of reasons . First of all , as Brad did elude I to , we really feel that this building does have two fronts and signage is important on both sides . The street side from an awareness perspective . The fact that Business Health Services is there . The Chanhassen Medical Center is there and then on the parking lot side , to identify which entrances people should go in. As Bob indicated, if the parking were in front of the building , this would obviously not be an issue . We would be very satisfied with signage on one side of the building . Secondly , if you look at the building design itself , the northeast corner is really only for ' the Chanhassen Medical Center and people cannot get from that northeast corner up to the second floor so we want to be sure that we have very clear signage . The only way they can really get to the second floor on the north r side is on the northwest side and not the northeast side so we want to have signage that makes that very clear . Thirdly and perhaps most importantly , we feel and if I could paraphrase John Devins who's the President of Ridgeview Medical Center who could not be here this evening and asked me toll talk in his stead . He feels very strongly that really as a major tenant in the building, we really do have the entire first floor between the Chanhassen Medical Center and Business Health Services . We feel it extremely important that we have appropriate signage on either side of the building . The signage that we're proposing is a high quality, individually illuminated signs with a type style that's referred to as Glared on bold. II The letters will be approximately 10 inches in height and we anticipate the signage to be very professional looking and really enhance the looks of the building . Those are my comments . If anyone has any questions or thoughts , I 'd be more than happy to entertain them. I do have , in case anyone is curious , copies of the specs on exactly what it is we 're talking about . It gives you a little bit of a feel for the size of the lettering and the type of the lettering that we 're talking about . Thank you . Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 4 Conrad: Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan, we 'll start down at your end. Comments . Questions . ' Recommendations . Ahrens: I know very little about this building . Is there a lobby inside? Brad Johnson: Yes . On one end there 's a . . . The way this works is there 's a lobby coming in on the north there . On this end there 's a lobby that 's for the upstairs and downstairs . . . This is the north side . So you come in ' here and you go upstairs to the tenants that are on the second floor and you 'd also go to Business Health Services which is located on the first floor . If you want to go to the Medical Center . . .you go in this door . Ahrens: Because there 's not an interior hallway? II Brad Johnson: No . That 's why they just take the whole floor and so this entrance is only for the medical center . That 's what John was saying . r Ahrens: I assume there will be some type of a signage inside the lobby ' that tells you where the location of the offices inside so people who come into the lobby will know where to go . ' Brad Johnson: Oh sure . But not for the medical center . Ahrens: Right . In the staff report , there 's a statement in the background statement that says one of the conditions of approval was that no business may have more than one wall sign as regulated with the sign ordinance . Wall sign refers to the ban also? Is that what? Okay. I assume there's going to be more than , how many tenants are going to be in the building? Brad Johnson: Major tenants, probably about 5 or 6 and then small , 10. Ahrens: So you want to advertise the major tenants in the building like a ban sign? Brad Johnson: Yes . That 's basically why we have the 5 on both sides . Ahrens: But there will be more than one sign for the medical tenant right? ' Brad Johnson: I think that 's what 's been recommended and I think the staff said that 's fine . Ahrens: So what you wanted 2 bans for each major tenant? Is that what you wanted? Brad Johnson: Two bans for the two major tenants which are here tonight . Then one for the balance of the. . . I 1• Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 5 I Ahrens: So you want 5 in the front and 5 in the back? I Brad Johnson: Okay , there will be 5 in the front and 5 in the back with Medical Health Services having 2 . Or what do you call it , Business Health II Services . And the Medical Center having 2 because they take up a good share of the building and that will give direction as to where people should go and identification. The balance of the tenants probably would have one . As I read the staff report , what they were concerned about was II more not whether you really had one or two signs but that there were no more signs than allowed . Is that right? Olsen: Than were originally approved, yes . , Ahrens: The plans that were submitted on April 19th , the second set of plans or whatever . I don 't know how many plans they submitted . Brad Johnson: We submitted the second plans on the 17th . Ahrens: Okay . So those are the plans that you referred to as April 19th II plans? Olsen: 18th , yeah . ' Ahrens: 18th? Okay . At who 's request were those plans submitted? What was the purpose of having those extra plans submitted? Brad Johnson: Steve Hanson . • Wildermuth: We can blame it on Steve . , Brad Johnson: No , no . We submitted a set of plans and they were incomplete relative to the signage so we submitted those on Friday and Monday we came back . It was a site plan that had the sign on it and the elevation that had the signs on it were incomplete. We caught it when we received it and we said to the architect why did you do that and that was II like on a Thursday . So on Friday we shipped over the balance of the plans . . .and then we colored them up and presented them this way. Ahrens: Why would the first set of plans have 5 signs indicated on them and the second set of plans have 10? Brad Johnson: Oh, just because the architect hadn't consulted with us , Bob II and I and the owners of the building as to what kind of signage we wanted . That was all . So we caught it when we got the plans and we said, hey that's not right and we submitted it. We cleared it verbally with Steve Hanson . He 's just not here . Ahrens: So you 're saying that the City, Steve Hanson, approved 10 signs? Brad Johnson: The Planning Commission, we say, but there 's no record of it but we presented this plan . Ahrens: With 10 signs to the Planning Commission? ' r i N Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 6 Brad Johnson: And it wasn 't even an issue at the meeting .. Basically that 's less signage than we could do just by ordinance . The ordinance ' permits 15% which this is less signage . Emmings: Yeah , is that 15% is the maximum? Brad Johnson: Yeah . Emmings: You get what gets approved . You don't automatically get 15% . ' You 're saying things a little . . . Brad Johnson: It 's a good argument . ' Emmings: Yeah . Ahrens: My impression is that a lot of illuminated signs on the front of a building does make it resemble a strip mall . It seems that if the City Council had wanted , there was a desire to have the building moved to the front of the property so that it would be more like a downtown type of building and that it wouldn 't look like a strip mall . So it seems to me that if you put that kind of signage on the front of the building , it kind of defeats the purpose of moving the building to the front of the property and having it look like a regular downtown building . Brad Johnson: There was no discussion about that . We always presented this building . . . Ahrens: Well , they may not have thought about that but I just thought of it . Bob Mithune: Well there was discussion but not part of the City Council and that 's what the planners at that time wanted. Ahrens: They wanted the building moved to the front of the lot . Bob Mithune: And they wanted a lot of colorful signs. ' Ahrens: A lot of colorful signs? Well , I can't imagine that would look very good . That 's my own personal opinion . That a lot of colorful signs on the front of the building is going to make it look like a real professional building . Brad Johnson: What is a real professional building? ' Ahrens: Well , one with less illuminated signs all over the front . Lots of colorful signs . That 's my personal opinion like I said. I think it 's subjective . There 's no objective standard for what a professional building should look like but if it 's moved to the front of the property where it 's supposed to look like a regular office building in a downtown area , I don 't see the purpose for that and I think that if there is signage in the inside ' of the building where people , it 's not that big a building where people would get lost trying to find. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 7 Brad Johnson: It 's a very large building when it 's all completed . I Ahrens: Well I 've been by it . It 's not a huge building . Brad Johnson: No , there 's another whole wing that goes with this thing . It " goes on all the way down to the Riveria . Ahrens: It 's not built yet? ' • Brad Johnson: No . Conrad: You 're only looking at half here . Brad Johnson: You 're only looking at half the building . Ahrens: Well , I think that signage inside a building up there is a lobby II to direct people . I mean it 's not a huge office building . Brad Johnson: I appreciate what you 're saying but this is not an office building . It 's a professional service building which is like retail . The tenants that we put in there expect signage . • Ahrens: Well I think there 's a big difference between a retail building and a professional building . . . Brad Johnson: My tenants ' point of view . I 'm the one . . .they want signs or " they wouldn 't be here . Ahrens: Well okay . I mean I don 't want to argue with you . I 'm giving you ' my opinion and that 's the purpose of having our report right now . I don 't have any more comments at this time . Wildermuth: Would you have more than one tenant on a sign bar? On a single sign bar Brad? Brad Johnson: More than one tenant on a single? The ban could handle likell two probably . Each one of these bars. Wildermuth: Then you would plan to do something like that? I mean 1 potentially? Brad Johnson: They have to come back each time we do a sign. We have enough sign space here we think for our tenants. . . Wildermuth: How many tenants potentially will you have in the building? Brad Johnson: You've got to talk about major tenants and minor . We 're talking about 6 major tenants . Wildermuth: Just total . Brad Johnson: We could have about 30 . 1 I Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 8 Wildermuth: Okay , so there are quite a number that won 't have sign representation? Brad Johnson: That 's right . It 's mainly the ones like . . .doctor or dentist who we really are concerned about . Wildermuth: Well in all honesty , I 'm not very impressed with the appearance of the building to begin with . It seems to me that the front of the building probably ought to have a single sign ban and maybe the back could have 3 . Something like that but I 'm not in favor of illuminating the signs and I 'm certainly not in favor of 5 sign bans in front and 5 sign bans in back . The Southdale Medical Building for example doesn 't have any signs . Brad Johnson: That 's a different . . . Wildermuth : How do you see that Brad as a different kind of building? Brad Johnson: John , maybe you want to address marketing of health services because this is not , I 'm dealing with what the tenants require . Not so much . . . Wildermuth: I understand . John Jacobson: I think part of our objective here is that the Chanhassen Medical Center is going to be attracting people from a fairly geographic area and they 're going to be coming into town. They 'll know of the Chanhassen Professional Building . They 're going to perhaps see that main signage and yet there 's still going to be some question . We just have an interest in being able to be visible from both sides of the building if you will . Really for two different purposes . The front side being the location of where the Business Health Services is located in the Chanhassen Medical Center and on the back side , the different entrances . I might add that there is not a way in from the lobby area into the Chanhassen Medical Center on the north . Ahrens: I understand that . John Jacobson: You eluded that perhaps there should be signage in the lobby area and people could go in that way . They can 't get to the clinic from that door . Conrad: Anything else Jim? Brian? Batzli : I assume that , if I remember , Phase 2 the buildings king of tie in and I assume at that point you would want signs up and down the front and back of Phase 2 . The two buildings tie into one another . Brad Johnson: That 's right and it 's a retail building . Batzli : Jo Ann , in the report I think you said that you didn't have a problem with the same tenant advertising on both the front and the back . That no variance would be required . And no variance would be required 1 I Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 9 1 additionally if we approve the -10 signs here correct? Because they 're not over the maximum limit? I guess I was kind of looking at this a little big " differently I think than Jim and Joan . I was picturing this as more of a downtown building . More retail like if it was Excelsior it would be a cluster of different buildings . Each one of them would have their own sign' indicating who was in that . Hennessy Travel Services . Ben Franklin . You know , Excelo Bakery and so when I was picturing this , I was picturing it as if this is the type of building we were trying to do , we should give them the signs so that 's kind of how I was looking at it and I don't have a problem with giving them the 10 signs . Ellson: I sat down and thought of it in terms of if I was the tenant . They' could see the sign in the front and they made the decision that they wanted to go in there . I don 't think if they went in the wrong door in the back , number one , they 'd only do it one time and they 'd probably never make that II mistake again . Number two , I think they 've made the decision that they 're going to go in there based on what the front is so I don 't think the back needs to have quite as many . Then I thought about , what does my doctor 's office have or what does my dentist have and my dentist is right up against a street and he 's got it in front but he doesn 't have it in back . The first time I went in there I went in the wrong door but ever since I 've been going into the right door so I can 't see that many . I think that the II traffic isn 't going to be in the back . The people go in the back have decided they 're going in there because they 're going to park . It 's not like a high traffic area that 's going to draw people in unless they 're in the apartment building or something like that so I don't see that that side is as important to them as the front street and I think the front street can do it adequately without having the back . So that's my comments . Emmings : I looked at this the way Brian did basically. I don 't really have anything to add besides that so I 'd be comfortable with the 10 myself . A couple other things , comments I 'd have is , if this is the Chanhassen Professional Building and if there winds up being 6 major tenants and 15 small ones , it would seem to me you would want that name on the building somewhere . Brad Johnson: It 's on the pylon . Emmings: Okay . That 's in front . Okay. That takes care of that concern I and then the only other concern I 'd have is having more than one name on a sign . I 'm not real comfortable with that and I don't know if it means that the lettering gets smaller . If you wind up trying to put 5 people on one of those bans . I think it ought to be limited to, it probably should be limited to one tenant per ban . That 's all I 've got . Erhart: I think the medical industry has changed significantly and. what well used to think of as a professional building years ago or even 10 years ago , today has become much more competitive and therefore I think today a professional building needs that signage to attract customers. I know if II I go to a dentist and I do . I go to Mike Leonard over in the building over by Dell Road there and he 's having a hard time getting going . There 's no signage out there . i 1 i tPlanning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 10 Brad Johnson: He 's moving . Guess where he 's moving? Erhart: Here? Brad Johnson: Guess why he 's moving . Ellson: Because you promised him a sign? Brad Johnson: No . He 's in a building that does not or hasn 't set it up like this . We 're recognizing the needs . We also have another dentist moving because of that . ' Erhart : Yeah , I asked him if he was and he hadn't decided yet but anyway , I think it 's real competitive out there and I think they need the signage ' to get going so I 'm in favor of the signage . Conrad: Okay , thanks Tim . It 's real clear to me , I believe I approved what I see here . My memory fads through time . In fact , over 24 hours it fades but I do believe that this is what I saw and it didn 't raise any concerns with me then and it still doesn't because it still looks tasteful . I think it 's critical in retailing , and I think as we develop downtown Chanhassen , it 's just really critical that we give people the signs that drive folks into , that help people get to the right building . It 's part of my business . I see it all the time . Signage is extremely important . One , we kind of impose the problem on the building . The city imposed it . Still , regardless of whether the City moved it forward or back , I think the building has two fronts and the consumer has the right to find the building , the office that they want to go to . I think the signs add some ' excitement to it . It is , as somebody else said , it is retail space . It 's more than a professional office building like we 're used to . The business has changed . Like Steve , I agree . I don 't think we should allow multi ' names on one ban. I don't like that . The only other thing that bothers me , the only other thing that bothers me is what this . If our ordinance didn 't allow us to allow 5 front and back signage , wall signs , I would want ' to revisit the ordinance . It does so we can do this and therefore we 're not setting a precedent . We are responding to a situation that is justified . At least in my mind is justified so we aren't setting a precedent . Olsen: As long as they 're below . ' Conrad: The 15% but we can have , okay. Those are my comments. Any motion? Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign proposal allowing 5 signs on the front and 5 signs on the back-for a total of 10 signs and recommend approval of the site plan amendment with the condition that there not be more than one business name per sign ban . Batzli : Second . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign proposal 5 signs on the north side and 5 signs on the 1 • Planning Commission Meeting May 2 , 1990 - Page 11 i south side for a total of 10 signs for the Chanhassen Medical Center with II the condition that there be no more than one business name per sign ban . All voted in favor except Elison, Wildermuth and Ahrens who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Conrad: Annette , any summary for why you voted against it other than your comments? Elison: No , nothing other than the comments I 've had . Conrad: The same? I would imagine the same . Very straight forward . Okay . " Motion passes . Goes to Council? May 30th? Olsen: I don 't know if that 's right . It 's the Wednesday after . . . PUBLIC HEARING: NORTHWEST NURSERY LOCATED AT 7801 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD: A. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE ALTERING AND FILLING OF A CLASS B WETLAND. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WHOLESALE NURSERY. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public ' hearing to order . Mark VanHoef: I 'd like to show some slides . Obviously all the drawings ' are a little cumbersome to work with so I thought if I showed some pictures of what we 're really looking at that might be somewhat helpful . I just have a few slides to kind of compliment Jo Ann's presentation and then I 'll make some comments as to some of her etches or sketchings . This is the area to the south of the entrance which has already been bermed and planting screen of 8 to 10 foot Austrian Pines have been put in. The problem that Jo Ann eluded to and some of you remember , we were here last II fall . This area right here was the only ditch catch area for any of the water . And when we irrigated the crop , the holding crop that we had in the holding area , that water then would run into this ditch and the only outlet ' was to run through a culvert at the beginning of our driveway onto our neighbor 's property, the Finger 's property. It created some problems. The Finger 's approached us . We weren 't really in a position we could do ' anything . We contacted MnDot and at that time were told that that was the existing drainflow or waterflow and we weren't allowed to make any changes . So the problem continued until it was brought in front of the City and MnDot came back out . We worked with the City and what was done, and I can II show it in the next picture . Again, this is not the next picture going down the ditch area but this is the holding area that is behind that wind screen or that planting screen. Here's TH 101 right here and here's the planting screen that goes across the highway so this is the area that plant material was stored on that the water runoff was creating a problem. This is taken early this spring after we did do some grading last fall to 11 alleviate the drain problem. What we really accomplished here is a new 1 1 WI 11 _fell if iiitiliiliiiiliii .�,�,.■Il } Arvid Elness Architects Inc. MAY 0 I 18.93 CITY OF CHANt-IA� EM 04 May 1990 I Ms. JoAnn Olsen City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 Dear JoAnn: ' I have been asked to review our file on the approvals granted to the Chanhassen Professional Building as related to exterior signage. I attended the meeting at City Hall in ' which the attached plans were presented by Brad Johnson and myself. I personally described and discussed the signage on the plans 17 April 1989 and recall them being approved after Brad explained the necessity in order to attract professional service organizations. In regard to the above please find copies of our transmittals to Steve Hanson dated 14 April 1989 and 17 April 1989. The description and remarks describe the significance of the plans. The plan sheet A5 dated 17 April 1989 was labeled city submittal and was used on or about the day it was transmitted. I hope this might assist in clarifying this matter. Thank you, and if you have further ' questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ' ARVID NESS ARCHITECTS, INC. . ' Arvid Elness, AIA ' President/CEO 1 Butler North Building,Suite 200 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403 Telephone 612.339.5508 1 • Letter of Trans._.ittcrl -'==�' -� . . . DATE: . $1 .i11111'1T11nni'lan JOB NO: - Arvid Elness Architects Irl Butler North Building, Suite 200 RE: G 64.10.14` 1t.fts,t 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 I Telephone 612.339.5508 To: ��, We are sending you attached: rL.-‘rJtJU.ien ❑ Shop Drawings X Prints I ' G t rt.0 °I` C4dak.1 4444 lar•l ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Ord, O Other COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ' t o -417.M t l t As S'i rt.a+.) ./..-fnev ,s • - I 1 1 ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your information ' For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Revise and resubmit ❑ As requested )(For review and comment r ❑ Submit copies fcl distribution REMARKS: ring. *1115' L16114r04d t SItroltJ /Wor 1�G 'TlJGIDT . =ttJ1� GAS• .�ItLr-1�/: ' T�tt ilSs .•vyn►Bn5 Awe.. G, ,,3Q„e,-. fir-004 4-•i+•,1 5 wt�„-...t.. 51411a5 s 4.wes• sa.t t Ak->cP ot.s -tde tom" n4 �st.r� cep-sd .a-r e�5• tom• ' 1 E. 4..,,A-ra.4 41f6. <rt 410 %.4s 1 6Fsr..1 11.16M64.q tt.t St ,. 1 1 COPY TO: gi 444 "1'Aovoeo SIGNED 1 Letter of Transmittal --� . • 1 DATE: I u1111111Iti •1 : �-• Art= $°� •711tiTIMITitTn . • I - 1 JOB NO: Arvid Elness Architects Inc. Butler North Building, Suite 200 RE: .1 I41.— 154.i,,,,01•,,,1 510 First Avenue North IMinneapolis, Minnesota 55403 Telephone 612.339.5508 ITo: G'Y.�.rtt= We are sending you attached: I ' i.,.b,r.11JNiest T- ❑ Shop Drawings Prints G Imo( °� t�.,� 4�f•��+.4 D Copy of Letter ❑ Plans 1 ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Other I COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION I10 414•1.1 Al, AS S11L ri.a..) , et-swear!. C_t,.a. .ehro....IS • I - I I 0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 For your information �'►For your use 0 Approved as noted ❑ Revise and resubmit I 0 As requested X For review and comment ❑ Submit copies for distribution REMARKS: Iran= 4511 L.Idtht.troAdr1 I Gt61h.1 A.Nuv .-.-l1t.GIOtL r=tf lts,48. f ...16../• I I I COPY TO: ?I C44 1 owLa.4 SIGNED 1 I I I I I .- ••• - Lg 61 ‘ 4-7 1 NJ3v I _ I . . I Nlits vz 0 I t 1 I ,t‘ -mow 4r490 I 1 I it , ___ 1L-4, I • I- •V a Z ' el. a/. - si -- iirwei ---- I I:: l'■ -A." _•1' I . . ,A..7ri V sIVAII 1 unreal-9%0v* aver ■ ..i.rov - ■ . I 9.11114.1 110111 -717011:3 ------ 1,11.■ __if_ ...... — I ! IV 1 Z ri 191 g G1Z . I i- r t 1 1 1 i I I %.+1 I I 1 1 1 , I 1 ' 1 , Sa141.I alaa0Na,,-- I SaISIL al qa.orrille4rrill f aktrfA. 'tisrcht----- - ----)DNIMIna lYNOISSI1011c1 .,1 I I 1 44 reo 211670T Gill,' S.14•14 *lila, SOO.------ •-• I NE94-1NYI-0 1 ! 1 I I .. . . IMMO ••lb ' -- , ON= , ■I* .%.•■•• I I I I � v•■ i r I , it _ 4O--O _ 1' ; 1 _- •PAg4g Owl' firers 410 Nacicsmoi.)02 '" PROF 90N L BUDP C+-- __ -- r�ws4t, ..'i4rr u.t.uNUU. I I Jr ___ t.E mr�es -*- ! ? ,..., `r Ga iveadri rte s i4! i 1 � i t 3 t _/___.. 11 L ; 2!5 Si IG 2 I • Al 2k_ _0.-.4,_____t _ I "br�.,a,•afi _.----- cr►utc si.t� tt�a a tt� --- be'Ca�6'tiuti►►� raga ur —'`'-+ i!'Wttiid, r1 4ir i f frt'sla5 I _ "1 Iuwtl.S - ft f 4I 2 41 _.t i I I<ii • C'W•aart Matt is 1I 11 .J-1 8 SIGN 1 I '► a e riot \ I i Ars 1B . 10189 I I • N •— MI = MI MN MI • NO MN IIIII OM • MIII NM NM N • I— ••,..6• _• N T •i - t:°d • 1Y-0• 1-{(S> -12'_0• '"'(s) - CrygN • • m , m • 'tit, . iIM°IED DAME ``0`, T9 21-- (1) 11‘1� ��9> , - // ////!////trl- M.I. • - ,.4 oi, °-- ` /// 0 Cr',,� A m � I�1 tl, ' ■ ////////////// I I ELEVATION e ELEVATION HERITAGE PARK \ APARTMENT BLDG Comets Sidewalk ds - j i i M f11 11 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I k° ��r �o �o� • \\�� 1 I r1 r. FETAL I I. H i ll p I u-I I i 1 1111 I ,l \ for D; - si n • I! I I I°L ..-- Ew....nt w -- — FETAL R OIIIHHUHHH1 •''` . 1 ' b __._. i • - _ $ " " IIIIIII 1 1 • — " I 4 IIIV �+I Nk i N iA !,,, I I, �I"1 t.I -- pon fi ti IBER •li Parifilh%"IN R tlI. -u-.- " r :rEsxz zr zrz 2 'Min -- II I al p M1Mtswd■I[°N.w W. 7lr1 STREET __— CLOCKTOWERO R•to• �AL� __Itttlon.1811. Azure iv .1 . BW O*PAN*II 1 Bonding PIii I 4 J Parking Lot Ni...P I T Pa king Lot PAN*I ■ r..1nE.u�.„^,,,, � MwMps"'�Ii CfTYOFCHANHASSEN EXHIBIT 4 Approved t.�^K4or11 ........w----.,... �I :: _ .......«..1�..., °,"� ., ,,�,�___ NORTH SIDE PUBLIC 11E.1•M.. MMN.(.i.d�' ....n. IM.». ..... - PARKING LOT �/"f Q{� _0.... .,19L__ .YME•...ro SITE PLAN • °/ , �,J`• . auw+.• JBI. ALTERNATIVE-B I , . I e.r_r. IN.....m. S.A.P NO. SHEET4_OF S Iwn...% • , m - NM MN MN • MN NM NS MN MI NM SS ill" MN M MN MO EN _, z :° ° U v n _ C H Z . K - Z m w Eq 1 Z-8/r" ,Eq m �� < J , g o f wz _ 4/L - Cr O Z ° . -r- _ Z n. 3i , Ridgeview Center �'I`T'1,k, `= p' r :=,-..=e1_ 2.�C.-, IS •, 1-7%L 47L [ ') If-1,,.IHITt. V f 470 W. 78th St. - .5-77-: r'Tc_2 -r,..- S_r-•.' f.d:a 4 J -,- STyUE,6-. g"TQM,'S 1.1ELVE 1 1:}, F-'\Ei 2 Ch°) Business Health Services 0 2Ii tTYp)t A, Thies & Talle = a n Chanhassen Dental o >Q ° Dr. Fiedler, Orthodontist ,a< a -Lit Goldstar Mortgage PC Inovations .r au �1 - t"- I'4-.. M ,10 .2 i 1 4 I. l..J3, LT t,-1,5...%J-r - E I y A N-Z 311 • SC-Is-C,, .1'-0 V Q V e...)-'s-ii - Ks E. ■ 3t1 3s ,News; n proposed (Direde,ry� 2 - 5 - q • I ,6-.7. I 80555 N W SIlOd V3 NN I W alra Ens 1 3 3 8 1 5 3 N V 1 1 S 3 M L it aler IenoJddy.tawolsn ; �D y39"?.dH�`M1r� X 'j N 1 A N d d W O D uosJadsaleS ply 1 j N0IS 1SIf1002lON igiAl z-,-21- .--4'-4' Ii\ .ss n r Pk Q-gi-d(y pro 411\4 - Q^ro.-13dpD G Jo.�Laoold agl 4 a u!me/p 5igj SuolSlnag ale law%sn� cli‘C 40 n 1 J e Ow o- T N I " r "i„.____„ I 20 4 Z-35 ' 0 I za aa0 - a' N1- � v, 1 r V 1-la ; $ agVn r < I Lill ii 1. 'n c? 5 1 1 -sa 3� J fl W I 0 ,-). ,0 3 1. '4\ 1 n V all. (..,\I 1 v S K LL }-3 J" �1J •f Q 40 c.) ,..„ '3- ? g.,,, 6 - o ' � on � 4 2 1 � -1j 5tl dZ ^' _J Z �r 7 I C •J Iii:g I .0 K N _—>I I I 1 Met I f `,City Council Meeting - )e 4, 1990 I ` SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND SIGNAGE REVIEW, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, VEST 78TH STREET, BOB COPELAND AND BRAD JOHNSON. Jo Ann Olsen: The whole reason we're bringing this back in front of you is that the applicant first was coming through with a sign variance to allow one .of the tenants to have more than one wall sign. When we looked over through the files what the sign plan that was approved, we found that there were two different plans. One had 3 signs on the south side and 2 on the north and then there was also a plan that showed S signs on both sides. This is right in the aiddle of where. ..planners changed again and it's not real clear in the report or the Minutes that this is actually the sign proposal that was approved by the City Council and Planning Commission. We did get a letter from the applicant showing ' correspondence sending the plan with the 5 signs on both sides and the Planning Commission Chairman Ladd Conrad remembered approving 5 on both sides. So we're just kind of bringing it back in front of you to verify that this is what was ' approved. Not to have him prove what we feel that we want. The Planning Commission recommended the 5 on both sides. Councilwoman Dimler: Where did the confusion come in? Mayor Chmiel: Was this a draft plan or a finalized plan? Jo Ann Olsen: No, they had to go through an official sign/facia plan. The confusion was that there were plans submitted and the week before the Planning Commission packet and then there were plans submitted the week of the Planning _ ' Commission packet and I believe what happened was the plans that were brought by the developer shown during the discussion had the 5 signs on both sides. I just don't know if it was ever really clearly pointed out in the report that that was ' what was being approved. I'm not doubting that it wasn't shown. It's just one of those things that might have been missed along the way so we just want to get verification. Councilman Johnson: A typical 13th hour submission. When after the packets have gone to Planning Commission, then a new set of plans come in. That new set of plans. Personally I don't remember the 5. I remember the 3. 3 on one side ' and 2 on the other side. I thought it was kind of unusual they didn't put 3 on both sides. I don't remember the 5 and 5 but I don't have a problem with 5 and 5 actually. My memory remembers the 3 and 2 but that was a long time ago to try to remember. ' Mayor Chmiel: If it goes to that 5, make sure that there's no more than one business name per sign on there as the Planning Commission recommended as well. Councilman Johnson: So that means he can only have 5 businesses in that building which is a pretty big building for only 5 businesses. As long as the square footage is not over our, I don't have a problem with 2 names per sign personally either as long as we know exactly the size of those signs and all of a sudden we don't get some 14 foot tall by 20 foot wide sign. What's shown there are nice little signs. Mayor Chmiel: Does it spell out the exact size of those signs? I've read this. Councilman Boyt: 12 inch letters was in this. 28 11 'j il City Council Meeting - e 4, 1990 1 Councilman Johnson: We have some prints now. Councilwoman Dimler: This is the official? II Councilman Johnson: This is the 3 and the 2 version. 1 Councilman Boyt: Maybe while you guys are looking at it I can state a few concerns and then Brad or someone can respond to. Like many things downtown, once you see them it always seems as though there's some sort of surprise about II how it looks. I remember talking about the need to put this so close to the road when we built it. When I see it there, one of my concerns is that when we put signs on it, it's going to look even closer to the road so I'd like to have II you talk about that a minute when you get up to address issues. The other one is, as a what I would think of as a professional building in town, in driving by professional buildings normally what I see there is a name for the building and II I don't see each individual tenant listed. And I know you're not going to list each one. You're anticipating 30 tenants in there and there's no way you're going to get that many on there. So I see a concern and you've referred to it or somewhere staff did that this was a retail office center sort of thing as II versus a professional building. I'm not quite sure what the difference is in that. I can tell you that my expectations are a little bit different than what I'm seeing shape up in terms of the signs. I'm a little I guess the closeness II to the road gives that building a tremendous impact on the rest of downtown and I'm wondering if signs don't make it a little more apparent yet than it already is. I understand your tenant's desire to have their names out in front of II people. I'm just not real comfortable with it so I'd sure like to see if you've got any artist renderings or anything that will make this a little more clear. I'd sure like to see them. Councilman Johnson: As far as the clearness of it, how you backlight these II signs too makes a lot of difference. I mean you can put in some quartz lights back there you know and you can read 100 yards away. You can read at night II with. I'd want these signs for the night time side of it very minimally backlit to where they are readable but not glaring. Somehow we've got to specify that part of it because you can really throw a lot of wattage behind there and be very excessive. I Mayor Chmiel: We have to be sensitive to the residential people. Councilman Johnson: Especially on the north side. Yeah. I Councilman Boyt: If we take the lights across here in the west shopping center, II or the signs, that signage makes sense. It's not over bearing but it is informative. Yet it's set, gosh what is that, 100 feet off the street? 75 feet off the street? Now we're talking 20 feet off the street or less so I'm interested in how you're going to handle that. I Councilman Johnson: I'm very interested in your calling this a retail. I've always thought of this as a professional building where you'll have engineers . II and dentists and doctors and stuff like that. s totally agree. Councilwoman Dimler: Professional building? il 29 II \ II City Council fleeting - .7 4, 1990 i 11f Councilman Johnson: Yeah. ' Councilwoman Dimler: That was the name of the project. Councilman Johnson: This is the first talk I've heard of retail. It'd be interesting your comments there. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson and I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I think first of all for the record I want to point out that it's our feeling that this particular program has been approved and we have a number of people that have been through this meeting and have verified the fact that these plans were submitted both to the Planning Commission and to the City Council and were approved at that time. It's also our feeling that this should stand on their own but in case we do have a problem here, then we'll probably have to appeal because we feel that they were approved. Have gone ahead with our plans for the ' building. We've gone ahead based upon that approval in attracting our tenants and we've included that in our leases for our tenants and that is sort of where we're at. I believe you have letters from the architect that these plans, you received the original plans on Friday. On Monday we had additional set of plans. As the planner that wasn't here that handled those plans, he can't answer that. We carried those plans through. We did not know they were not in your packet but we submitted them each time we presented them and they were not ' an issue at that time. That's kind of where we were very surprised but I could understand how it could happen that for some reason they never got into the packets because they were here from day one. On Friday the 14th. The next ' Monday they were here. They were in Steve's hands. That week we submitted 10. There's a receipt saying that they were here prior to the Planning Commission meeting which is easily 30 days before the Council meeting. Now why it didn't _ ' end up in your packet I don't know. You know we don't get that part of the packet. All we do is get the letter. So that's kind of where we are. Relative to what the signs will look like, I'd like to have Bob Copeland address that issue and then number 2, why is this building or does any building today need signs and we're actually calling it a professional service center. I'd like to have the folks that are the tenants of that building explain that and we've got Dan Anderson and John Jacobsen here to explain the need in today's marketing world why this type of building needs this type of signs. I also want to point out that any building in the downtown district has the right to have 15% of it's front of it's building in signs. There is no restriction relative to being a professional building or whatever it is, you have a right to have a certain amount of signs and up to 15% of the front of the building and that's in your ordinances. This particular building is 7.5% of the front of the building in signs. As to why the building is close to the road as it is, that was a ' requirement of the City during that time. If you look at any of our previous submissions of the type of building we wanted to construct, we had it back away from the street and it's just there and that was required by the City staff or ' planners. At the time that we went through this process, they indicated that we should add color to the building and signs. It's not these 2 people here, that signs would be very advantageous to this building because it would add some color. The signs that we're thinking about using are identical to what are in Town Square. They're not the big white light back lit ones. They're individual letters. Some will be colored and if you look at it closely...to liven it up and that's where we are. Bob, do you want to deal with the sign issue itself? 30 I i City Council Meeting - ne 4, 1990 4 4 II Bob Copeland: Let me just try to clarify what we're really talking about here because it doesn't sound like everybody understands all the issues, at least the i way I do. We have two closely related issues that we're asking for. One is the number of signs. We want 5 on each side of the building. That would give us, as Brad said, 7.5. I guess we calculated it yesterday. It's just a little bit II under 6% of the face of the side of the building so again we want 5%. We also want the ability to allow a tenant and there are two tenants that want to have one sign on the south side and one on the north side. Now these signs, you cannot physically see these signs at the same time so they face opposite II directions. So those are the two issues. Now the Planning Commission said okay. You can do that. They also added that they didn't want to have more than one tenant on a sign band and we go along with that. That's okay. So that's II basically the issue. Now these sign panels are 2 feet high, 24 feet long and the number of letters and the amount of the sign panel that is taken up depends on the tenant. There might be a tenant with a four letter name or there might II be some that have many letters like Chanhassen Medical Center. The tenant will decide whether it's lit or not lit but we understand that we have to have individual letters which we're willing to... • Councilman Johnson: I'd think you'd want them all lit or none of them lit. II Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely. It has to be uniform. I Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'd think you'd want it uniform. Mayor Chmiel: I'd assume that they'd also go off at a specific time in the I evening. - Bob Copeland: We could arrange that. 1 Councilman Johnson: Is there going to be a late hours out patient with Chan Medical eventually? i Bob Copeland: I think if you hold that question, their representative can give you the answer. Councilman Johnson: Because then turning it off may not you know. II Mayor Chmiel: I have a question. We have one of the members of the Planning II Commission here. Brian, do you remember discussion at that particular meeting and I'm reading something here from the Planning Commission meeting of May 2nd and Emmings moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign 11 allowing 5 signs on the front and 5 signs on the back for a total of 10 signs and recommended approval of the Site Plan Amendment with the condition that there not be more than 1 business name per sign band. It says here you seconded it. Do you recall that discussion? I Brian Batzli: Yeah. The discussion was that they didn't crowd numerous names into each individual sign was the intent of that condition. At the time I don't II believe Brad or anyone else had a problem with that. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other discussion? II 31 II __ ___ __ �rt City Council Meeting - ne 4, 1990 IT Councilman Boyt: Well yeah. I think the side of the building that faces the apartment building, when those businesses are closed, that light should be off. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I agree. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was the point that I brought up. Councilman Boyt: The ones facing main street, I guess I don't have such of a concern with that or as much of a concern because the ones over here I believe are on every time I go by so that could be just part of main street. I tlayor Chmiel: They're all going to be the same 5 tenants in that particular building. They would normally have those syncronized onto a timer and they could split it but it's probably better off if they had them both going off at a specific time. Bob Copeland: Could I make a point here? I don't think you quite understand what we're talking about. There are two tenants now that have said they want to ' have signs on both sides. Now the remainder of the tenants will probably only have one sign each. Either on the north side or the south side so we're going to have more than 5 tenants. Alright so Dr. Hall is a dentist for example and he has signed a lease and he's going to have one sign. Only one sign on one side or:the other. And he's probably going to want it lit and he's probably going to want it lit into the evenings so people will drive by and see• that's where his place of business is. I think if you take a close look at some of _ these medical buildings, this is not only a medical building but if you look at them, you can see many signs identifying other businesses and things that go on. Councilman Johnson: So if he wants it lit he should be on the street side because at night there's not that many people running through the parking lot. Bob Copeland: Correct. But we only have five on the street side so not everyone's going to be able to be on the street side. Councilman Boyt: Well you've certainly seen more of these buildings than I ' have. The ones I've seen, the professional arts buildings have not had lit signs that are 2 feet high and 24 feet long on the front of them. Usually you have to go through some sort of central entrance and in that entrance is a ' directory and it will have room 103 and whoever's name is there. Bob Copeland: Are you familiar with Southdale Medical building? Councilman Boyt: Well I haven't been there in quite a long time. Bob Copeland: There's a floral shop. Drug Store. All those business have signs outside. Now also, our signs won't necessarily be 24 feet wide. That is the width of the sign panel. The backing board that the letters will be mounted on. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Am I right in the understanding that the letters won't exceed 12 inches high? 1 32 1 s 1 City Council Meeting Tune 4, 1990 pit II Bob Copeland: No. We don't know where that restriction came up. We're limited by the height of the panel. ' Councilman Boyt: Brad and I would disagree about the point of why the building is sitting so close to the road. We can say that's the City requirement and I guess I'll accept that part of it. The part that I have some difficulty with is why did the City require this. It's because it's your apartment building sitting back behind it and between this building's parking needs and the apartment building's parking needs, you couldn't put it anywhere else. ' Bob Copeland: That's not correct. Councilman Boyt: Okay, tell me why that building's out close to the front? ' Bob Copeland: I'll tell you. The reason it's out close to the front is because the City staff and the City consultant planning requested that it be out next to ' the road and the reason didn't have anything to do with parking other than they did not want to see cars parked in front of this building as you drive by on 78th. They did not want to have a streetscape that was cars in view all the time and then the buildings back away from the street. They wanted to have a streetscape that is similar to many downtowns where the buildings are right up next to the road. In this case it's about 30 feet away. It's not right up next to the road but they wanted it right up so the parking is on the north side screened from 78th. That's the reason. We had plans with the opposite. . . Councilman Boyt: Well I want to follow up on that in a minute but who's John ' Jacobson? John Jacobson: Right here. i Councilman Boyt: Okay, Mr. Jacobson. The letters will be approximately 10 inches in height and we anticipate the signage to be very professional looking. John Jacobson: .. .would have 10 inch letters. Councilman Boyt: And so as Ursula mentioned, you're then implying that we may , have some 10 inch letters and some 24 inch letters. John Jacobson: Well you won't be able to get a 24 inch letter. ' Councilman Boyt: 18 inch letter, whatever. This is really what you want to do? You want to have that kind of variance in the letter height? Brad Johnson: That's exactly what we have on Town Square and it's exactly what...on many of the y presentations that BRti and the previous planners did on signage for the downtown community. 1 Councilman Boyt: Right, I remember those. Brad Johnson: They wanted...and then some variance in the letters and that's I become a standard. If you drive by Miracle Mile...have all those signs and they're in the process of changing that to give the building a little bit more life. That's the trend in signage. It's exactly the presentation that Barb 33 i -1 s 1[4 .... ' City Council Meeting - ,ne 4, 1990 1 Dacy and the past planners did and we've tried to stay with consistent sign II bands. We don't have signs going all over and then the ability to have color and logos within that standard. I Councilman Boyt: Well if you're telling me it's going to be like what we see over here. Brad Johnson: We hope it is. That's exactly our goal. Those letters vary from II2 feet down to 6 inches. Councilman Boyt: Tell me about the position of the building. If we've got just I a minute because I've just had my concept blown out of the water so how did this building end up in front of the street. Because I remember, see Todd what I remember, I've heard that I'm wrong but I'll tell you what I remember. I remember the consultant coming in here and saying we need this many parking Lspots and this is what I heard so it must have been wrong. The only way we can get them is by creatine one large parking lot between these two buildings and now this gentleman is coming back and saying that's not true so what do you Iremember? Todd Gerhardt: There was a variety of things. I mean the apartment building II went in first and then the Medical Arts building and with the apartment building already set in place, you have to work off of that. There was talk of putting the Medical Arts building back and the parking lot in the front but that would not work with the people in the apartment building looking out their window to a I building in their front yard per se of the apartment building. It just didn't 1 make any sense so it flip flopped back the other way and you have the parking lot inbetween the two structures. And it got pushed an additional 15 feet i II towards the roadway to allow for another drive lane back there and reduce the parking for that access. You have 2 drive lanes around the parking lot. At one point you only had one. 1 Councilman Boyt: What I don't remember coming out of it was the city staff saying that we want this to sit up next to the road so it will change the way West 78th Street looks. IICouncilman Johnson: Actually I do remember that but I think that was justification after the fact. Such as the crooked old city hall. I think they I came back and said yeah, we've done what we can. Now let's think of reasons that it looks good. I think that's what the consultant did in that case when he came out saying this. I was kind of going ah huh anyway at that point. IBrad Johnson: Jay, the original downtown plan drafted in 1985, or 1984, prior to us doing this model had that whole side of the street with the buildings pulled to the street. And that was the plan at that time and the planners that I were involved in that always wanted it to be that way. Then we came back and decided that we had a tenant for that area, mainly Mr. Jacobson and the clinic and the hospital and our original proposal was to design a building that say II more in the middle and ran north/south. Because of the inability after a year of us to build on that site because we could not relocate Mr. Hanson and because we could not relocate Mr. Loren Anderson and a whole bunch of other reasons that had nothing to do really with the staff, we finally threw our hands up and said Iwhy don't you guys tell us how we can do it and if you look at the design of — 34 II r II City Council Meeting - ne 4, 1990 II this particular building, it was designed around Mr. Hanson so we could build II right over him because we anticipated that, and he's still there. This is how many years ago did we sign the lease? 2 years? 2 1/2 years ago. They're just moving in. We're about to lose the presence of our main tenants and they were. just going to go elsewhere and we would not then be able to complete the II downtown and so finally, I think correctly so, the staff came back with this plan because we were unable to build the planned building that we had recommended originally and that's really why it happened. It's nobody's fault II except that land acquisition in downtown areas sometimes go slow as you guys are aware of. Councilman Johnson: So there's a lot of various reasons that this has occurred I and it has nothing to do with the signs. We're here to talk about the signs. Brad Johnson: We're happy with the way it looks. I Councilman Boyt: It has lots to do with the signs because the building's sitting there now and somehow we've come up with the opportunity, although I _ debated by Brad to change these signs and my point would be, I want these signs to be very conservative because the building is already obtrusive and when we put lit signs on there, it's going to be even more so. And so I don't know what the right answer is but I know part of that answer has got to be that these signs are not glaring attractions to that building. mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is you want consistency within those signs I Bill whether 12 inch or 16? Councilman Boyt: I think I want that. I Brad Johnson: Defining that, we have a sign band of 20 inches. I think our sign band on the balance of the buildings downtown is more like 2 to 3 feet and II sometimes it runs as high as 5 feet. We've cut this back and scaled it back. The reason that the hospital has 10 inches signs is because they have a lot of letters. Right? So you just can't be high and long at the same time. There may be somebody who just wants to be DDS you know and we're only talking about II five particular tenants but those tenants will not sign leases with us. Will not move in there unless they have identification because that has become the key to marketing. I think Mr. Jacobson wants to speak to that about how II important it is to the medical profession today that they have signage because that's the name of the game. It's competitive. We are trying to stay within, we've scaled down from 15% down to 7 1/2 and we really don't have a lot of II signs. Councilman Johnson: For one other purpose I want to just say one thing. For public safety purposes and people driving along the road, I'd hate to have the II signs where you have to look for them too hard. The signs have to be obtrusive enough to where they can be quickly seen because otherwise you're driving like this which some people do anyway but no use giving them much more reason. They II should be able to catch it quickly. John Jacobson: My name is John Jacobson. I've Vice President of Ridgeview Medical Center and as Brad has eluded, we are the major tenant on the first II floor which consists of the Chanhassen Medical Center which is of course Dr. - 35 II 1 li- City Council Meeting - .ne 4, 1990 ir David McCollum and the associates that we're bringing on with Dr. McCollum and ' Business Health Services. I think the issues have been well discussed this evening. I find the definition between retail and profession intriging in the sense that I'm not sure that there's such separateness anymore between retail and professional. In health care, at least in the last 10 years in health care, ' marketing has become, whether that's good or bad, it's become the reality of the field. It's certainly something that we're sensitive to. As a matter of fact that's the reason we're in Chanhassen is because we're very aware of our service area and the opportunities that this particular community presents to us. In terms of the signage itself, we feel very strongly that we need to have signage on both sides of the building. Really on the south side or on the street side ' for identification of the business and on the north side for where those particular businesses are located. Dan Anderson who's the clinic manager just started a couple months back just described to me, yesterday there was an elderly woman that inadvertently walked in the wrong door because we don't have ' the signage, the appropriate signage up yet. I think for competitive purposes, for marketing purposes, for visibility purposes, for educational purposes, we feel very strongly that we want to have signage on both sides of the building. We also are planning on evening hours. We would certainly, our preference would be that the signage, particularly on the street side, go into the evening. We think it's important that as people come to the Chanhassen Dinner Theater that they become aware that we have the Chanhassen Medical Center there and Business Health Services there. A lot of our clients come from outside of the community of Chanhassen and as all of us are aware in marketing today, you need to create an awareness and we need to have visibility and people need to be aware that ' we're here.Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor? My mailbox weekly I think has mail from ' Southdale, St. Francis and Waconia and Methodist and so they're all marketing for my sickliness in my house and we are denying them very well. But I understand the idea of marketing and trying to market. I think we're almost quibbling a little bit versus 3 on the front versus 5 on the front and 2 on the back. I am concerned about the neighbors that are going to come in from that apartment complex. They're going to have some glowing signs in there. We just had some neighbors complaining about pizzas down at TH 7 and TH 41 cooking potentially and so people get excited about something that maybe changes. I don't know if the third floor of that thing's full yet or not. ' Brad Johnson: It's full. Councilman Workman: Is it? The signs as I imagined them, I'm on public record as saying I think this building looks better than I thought where it is and lit up at night and some of the gray tones and the lighting and stuff. It would appear to me from these signs and what is potentially proposed that it isn't going to make it look really any better but I'm going to leave that to the ' owners and potentially the tenants. Don't we have illumination standards as far as how bright and neon versus anything else? Don't we have anything? Paul Krauss: The new site plan ordinance does regulate the amount of foot candles that can appear at the property line to half a foot candle. Now that's not very bright but you can see something quite a ways off that's below that cutoff. Of course a sign is not shielded. It's just designed to project out so 36 i i I City Council Meeting - -sne 4, 1990 it can meet that half a foot candle standard and still be found to be annoying to somebody who's trying to sleep. ' Brad Johnson: I think the answer to that one.. .concerned that we simply turn off the back signs when the business is done at the end of the day which, how late would you guys possibly run? John Jacobson: Typically our evening hours mill end at 8:00 but we are... Councilman Workman: In the summer probably not at all. Brad Johnson: Not at all in the evenings. Maybe 9:00 or 10:00 and we could just it up for that whole. ..and just make that a regulation like we have a lot of other regulations. Councilman Workman: Are you leaving this then at 5 on each side and that's it? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: Okay, is that a part of one of the stipulations? Brad Johnson: We're just saying that's what we thought it was approved and we're coming back and arguing the point saying. . . Councilman Workman: If you have a demand for more than 10 signs are you going to be putting more signs up? Brad Johnson: No. We're quite comfortable. We'll have 5 major tenants. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know where they'd put them anymore Tom. Councilman Johnson: In their windows. Brad Johnson: ...look like also. We're going to have 5 signs. We do not anticipate, we'll probably have about 10 tenants in the building. 3 or 4 of the major tenants, the second largest tenant in the building is not going to have a sign and that's the owner. Councilman Workman: I guess and I don't know, we can all try to imagine how this going to all look, etc. but. Brad Johnson: Remember we have to come back each time we do do a sign. We're back to see these folks right? You've got your staff. We've got to pull a sign permit. There's all kinds of checks and balances. Councilman Workman: We like to see them Brad. But I guess I don't know really ' what we're going to accomplish by 3 on the front versus 5 on the front and as it pans out, I don't know. It's the whole marketing question about a business' ability to promote itself and obviously they have the right. They're not even filling the requirement. Half of their requirement for the sign square footage and so I think we went a long way around the block on this one and I'd like to move approval. ' 37 4City Council Meeting - to 4, 1990 _. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I have a few things that I'd like to say too. I guess my main concern is that because it is so very visible, I don't mind 5 ' signs on either side. I would like to see uniformity however and if that means uniformity on letter size, I guess I would at least on the 78th side. I would prefer to see it not lit up in the back at all. I don't mind lighting in the 1 front because I can see, you know we can have regulations that say okay they have to be off by 8:00 but there's invariably going to be a break in that and we'll have the apartment people in here complaining. Brad Johnson: Remember Ursula that whole back parking lot's lit. That's a well lit back parking lot. . Councilman Johnson: Street lights in the back parking lot are going to be worse than the sign lights. Councilwoman Dimler: And they'll be in here complaining. Brad Johnson: Well that's a requirement that the City had that it be very well it so we didn't have crime in the back. . John Jacobson: It 's also very late. By 4:30 in the evening in the wintertime and if we're open until 8:00, we can't. 1 Brad Johnson: The real problem is people finding their way to the proper place and there's 2 or 3 places in there that are going to be open in the evening. ' Primarily the clinic is one and the health services. Those are two. The other ones I don't think. . . Councilwoman Dimler: What are you going to do with those people coming? Councilman Johnson: Are they going to have separate entrances? Brad Johnson: Yes. There are different entrances. Mayor Chmiel: I think if we have for those signs to go off at a specific ' time, I think that would alleviate that. Brad Johnson: I think by 10:00 or 9:00 or something like that. It is going to be well lit. I mean there's going to be a lot of candle power back there just from the lights in the parking lot. Don Ashworth: There is uniformity in terms, when we had first talked about ' signage we were concerned I think with the point that Councilmember Dimler's attempting to bring up and that's the uniformity. The way that was built in was in the sign bands themselves so that's a very distinct, exact area. We've used ' that same concept with the Retail West area and also with Kenny's. Now within those bands though you can get different signs and a lot of that depends again, as they brought out, the number of letters in the business. So Kenny's will be a different size and I think Your Hour Glass Cleaners goes on for 10 feet or something like that. Your Majesty's. But again, they are all controlled to within those sign band areas. 38 1 - . • City Council Meeting - - 'ne 4, 1990 if Councilman Johnson: Probably different sizes. Is there any restrictions on having flashing? Mayor Chmiel: These are going to be just lit. No flashing. Yeah, I'd object strongly to that. 1 John Jacobson: My organization, they will not be flashing signs. Councilman Workman: Well I'd again move approval with the stipulation that they be off in the rear once hours are over. Somebody flip off the signs. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a potion on the floor. Is there a second? 1 Councilman Boyt: I'll second that. I've got a question. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Ask your question 8i11. Councilman Boyt: Where are you going to put the pylon sign? As long as we're talking about signs, we might as well figure out where that's going. Bob Copeland: Well that has been on the site plan and there's never been any question about that just to refresh your memory. The pylon sign is right there. 1 Councilman Workman: By the proposed driveway through there? Bob Copeland: That's correct. This would be the proposed driveway. Councilman Boyt: And that was how high? Just off hand. Was that fairly close to the ground? I Bob Copeland: It's under 5 feet. Councilman Johnson: Oh, that's a ground sign then? Bob Copeland: Oh yes. Councilman Johnson: It's not a pylon sign. Bob Copeland: It's not a massive Amoco Oil type sign. It's approximately a foot and a half high, 14 feet wide and... Councilman Boyt: What's going to be on that? Bob Copeland: We don't know yet. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we had a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the amended Site Plan as shown on the plans dated April 18, 1989 with the condition that the - lights on the rear of the building towards the apartment building be turned off when business hours are over. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 39