Loading...
7. Site Plan and signage review Chan Professional Bldg. g , - { ' • Y OF PC .,ATE: May 5, 1990 tkati iHAIT CC DATE: May 30, 1990 CASE #: 90- Sign I i STAFF REPORT IPROPOSAL: 1. Sign Proposal for Chanhassen Professional Building 2. Site Plan Amendment II- z I Q LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Great Plains and West 78IbLStreet Intersection Gy u y norr mistratoi V - Endorsed W1131* aml Mod':`:i d 1 a APPLICANT: Brad Johnson Rejected Lotus Realty flat; 5-3,3-10 Q Box 730 Date Submitted to Commission I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lett $drf'.i!:ee, to Coond (o-II_q v I . . I PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District II ACREAGE: DENSITY: IIQ ADJACENT ZONING AND . tE , LAND USE: N - PUD; Heritage Apartments S - CBD; commercial . I Q -E - CBD; commercial W - CBD; commercial W WATER AND SEWER: Available • b PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Property is level and developed. i 2000 LAND USE PLAN: . Commercial II , Medical Arts Center Sign Request May 2, 1990 Page 2 BACKGROUND ' 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 11 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 I Medical Arts Center Sign Request I May 2, 1990 Page 3 Number 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 I 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 II Medical Arts Center Sign Request May 2, 1990 Page 4 11 condition that there be no more than one business name per sign ban. 1 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. ' RECOMMENDATION The City Council must decide whether or not the 3 sign bands on the 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. r I 1 I I ITY Q F k _ J. DATE: April 19, 19891 `) HAHASE C.C. DATE: 8, 1989 N CASE N0: 89 Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: A) Preliminary Plat Approval B) Site Plan Review of Final Facia Signage and Exterior Building Lighting and Revised Sidewalk and Parking Z Layout Configuration Q V LOCATION: North of West 78th Street and East of 480 West 78th Street Cl. APPLICANT: Lotus Realty P.O. Box 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-12; proposed Heritage Park Apartments S- CBD; commercial use ' E- CBD; commercial use Q W- CBD; commercial use IMIMM WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available OMNI PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is level I 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial 11 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- 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. 1 I North Side Parking Lot April 19, 1989 Page 3 I 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 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. 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. 1 3. Pedestrian signs be added to cross walks in parking lot. ATTACHMENTS i 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. II 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 20 11 ' something like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes, that's a PUD? IBatzli: 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. . . IEllson: I can picture it. . . IConrad: 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. IIConrad: .. .you don' t think the developer could never achieve? 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 Iapartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced. • 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. . . IIConrad: 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 Iif you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us. II 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. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. ISteve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. I Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 — Page 21 - 4 f 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 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 Gelco. 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. . . Arvid 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 standing and the facade standing out in front of it with a change of material . 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 front 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 what 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 some 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 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 submitted 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 happening around town. These are materials that are very common place. . . Brad Johnson: What about the lighting? , • 1 IIPlanning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 22 11' Arvid Elness: Then the City has some lighting plans that we looked at for Iour 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. . . I 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? Emmin s moved, Ellson second to close the public hearing. All voted in g � P 9 favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. IIHeadla: 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 Ithe 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, Iwe 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 Ithe 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 Istandpoint 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 IIsigns. 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? Hanson: I think some of the traffic will go around that way. The other Iquestion, 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. . . 111 IHeadla: 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 i ) Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 23 f happens. All the rationale says it shouldn' t, there are speeders. . . I simply can not believe. . . I want to see something to make that sidewalk safer. Wildermuth: I had a problem with the sidewalk. . . , 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. Hanson: The other lighting was what the architect had mentioned. . . Brad Johnson: I don't have a lighting plan because the lighting plan is the 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. . . ' Elison: 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 I think.. .then it stops and then you've got this distance open but this goes tight 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 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 II 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. didn't warrant II stop signs. I'd start with that and then make them prove that it wasn't necessary. Then we'd just have. . . Tim Erhart's discussion could not be heard on the tape. Conrad: . . .yet from the apartment building standpoint, they're going so.. . 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 I t� ► ) II Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 24 I: II 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 II 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 Idocument. . . I Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Got 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? 1 Headla: . . .1989 with the following recommendations. The three listed. The first two. Pedestrian signs be added to crosswalks. I'd like to go Ito 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 there another motion? IIErhart: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior Ilighting 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 Iportion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning 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 I 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. Idmmings: Did the Public Safety Director and Fire Department review this plan for the access? They did? IIConrad: Is there a second to Tim's motion? 11 0 It Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 25 Elison: I'll second it. Erhart moved, Elison seconded that the Planning Commission recommend , 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: , 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 possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. 1 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. 3atzli: My reason is, I still don't like the eastern entrance to the south. The eastern most southern entrance. Emmings: It just emphasizes the sidewalk issue. I can't approve the plan the way it is. , PUBLIC HEARING: COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPEAT LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL, INTO 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. C. 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 I and Rezoning issue. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat 489-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 11, 1989" with the following conditions: I i • • - CITY - F 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 vi4 CHANHASSEN ' --i (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM 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 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 discussionbn the site plan centered on three issues. The first of those vas the sidewalk extending from Heritage Park Apartments acrossthe 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 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 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. 1 I I . . City Council Meeting 22, 1989 I .• . • i 7. Provide the addition of 2 more Linden trees on the landscape plan. 11 All voted in favor and the motion carried. IIRoger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor. The motion was specifically d(1) . Did not include d(2) . II Mayor Chmiel: It was my understanding covering as it was mentioned making both of those 1 and 2. ICouncilman Hoyt: I would approval of item d(2) . Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. ICouncilman Hoyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan Review for a 6 and 8 unit townhame building for South Lotus Villas Townhames. All 1 i voted in favor and the motion carried. fl II( 4 H. NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-17. • 5 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 t. coming out by the clock tower. I did talk to Gary today briefly. I guess I �p7 would just like to bring it up before the Council. I know Gary Ehret is here IIalso. Maybe get sane more comments. The Planning CO mission didn't look at bthat aspect of it again? . Brian Batzli: I made a comment but everyone else seemed satisfied with it. ICouncilman Workman: I guess I'd like comments from the Council then as far as how they feel that south exit is. IICouncilman Johnson: I'll start on that. I'll basically make the same comment I 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 1 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 II and they need that access according to their businesses. Take that access away, 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. No development. IICouncilman Workman: Are you saying they're threatening us Jay? Councilman Johnson: That's the tone I get out of here. They didn't threaten. II 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. II15 I :3 • City Council Meeting - M- ?2, 1989 I Councilman Workman: So Jay then you're saying you're fully in favor of this 51 egress at least coining 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. We 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 I 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. U,ie can't just put them out of business. So that's where I sit. Is that it's a reasonable compromise. ' Mayor Chmiel: Ursula? Cbuncilwanan 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 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 :IL 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 Cliniel: 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, Cbuncilnwn 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 Approve Plans and Specifications t9 b. Resolution #89-70: A pp pecifications and Authorize the Advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 16 , i . , . , - . . ..... ... .......:_t_. # !_. I • 1 1r- 1 _4* . jf i ..h: ; How i+ llflumi!yriiirrHl l . ,.1 1!11 ^,, f t�;T• 1i Ri i ' u,. !.1.111,.1, 0411.15.11! 1 �, 11.1. - I.. ,,1 1.... 1 .411w NI . I ' ii141 i0�� i ci;alil�� ,r - • I • -)11..;i. im;,1 .,ii.bl�lii +;' ..�4 . ,0::::: ,1'.1'0.,ii, s, 41 �i 1=1 ,r.:••- 1, ,1: •'./!P is .' lin."h:r1,1 '_j..Ltit111'•i: 1 •I.j ;,,. i, tt rT 1":1!a1111 iiialii,'•' 1 1 ; FL'c• L1 :' c To ii!ui ili 11HN111 ! .�, • I, may. {:9m. elli III' i i I ...1,��1 l:. .i , .1$-H • 1 aiI ® _ j1 ii I ' I i ' 1 I II 1.-• ;1iic: ] i'. �til —;1 1 'ti ��ci� iC 1 1 . 'lil 111 . 11 - IF Tit'' -ID PI ' 1 . -.. . it - 1,,. 11 i, I 1 11 �• .. a i � ., ...,....• .. ...... 6 ,„ -: _ 1 .. , 11,-de„- . ,. . ...• ,..., ; at J1L 1 , ..,....‘`� �� fig • # • •loot, iiui� 1 '"''; - ::: i I -.•I. . . .. '71%.-.,„:.„•..-. ..,-, ' ... :..:.::.::::.:..::.:. ;,1,:t1 i[1 1:..-:::: 111111li lllimit i 1 j . =.`. ! i ,1 ,, !i!Si!I 1;i �!'! 1:11 ! -1 1 1. • _ - i,!:1' , 11011: l�k c ` ' ,,'. •S'. � I I - \ Q Iii. '• • .. j-. ' \ I s 11 rw• c • • •_=- • WEIi .'' s'l:'i,)liil '}t • • - . ; -. uu ,,' ;IduM y I ;^t I s :1 a -;-;--- t ,- ,- a Aso ; a — 1 •I TI ®1JHV 1 II II \ I p i p .1 ai It � _ © i 1 I.I. 9 poPa t I i I ',I.I .O,g”, iI ll i:.--..-64,4 t„4 s 1 1.. ■ ■ 8 -1 i. ■ 1; \; ,--1 1 11 1■ III_4 ® ' p l 11 . 1, • GO: 1 N I ii 4 1 1 . I i i :� . . 1 ! '`�`- • ♦ �) . �� 1�.l�� h( �1 , . t 1 _ b' . _ 2 . ' ot , • • .. . �r III p •I - ' (ii Mil 1 lilhItII 1.1, . I I no wo . at - ..•• ,;ilk !HID 1111111 I - i 1 1 ji::aulilul 11 uuulul _,l ___, u:.: . : r.- 4L is y i ( .“,� ������� "�MIIII!i❑ I:/IIIItAI 1�l; _ :C�'IA I t 'ITT` 11 \ !..�11111III 111111111 vi - 1, A 11 191 '1 �, I :::.i..,.,:;a1 11111111 III 111111111!!1 •1 1, 111 I t 1' i 11 I 11 iI 11 t•ilk 1 .—.; e,i. iI 1,_•1•11 11 I' I� i II id ::::11 : It i II '' 8 eIO Ii I , 1 • • I s I 1 I ® • I ® i • I I • .. '''. t,' 7 - - is i' 11 S © I ® .. • I1 I f: ® 0 I i e Jamltl!!•oan Ii: ,. illl —'I 'Ay 1' ,''i' �; 'I - (I). -ii � 4 ~I1 Illj fj/,''. - —11 '; : i1!a III II IIII : :' ! L�� 1I E I'.. I'II 1. III '1 �; 1.- 11;. I:"I 1. 1 Ar::::: 4 .1 ii - 11 - ., 1 . i ii 1 . ( =. 1 ®I I _4 E 1 r 4; 111 f 1 .r 1 • 11 4 \\:1 ;, 1 , I i LL. (- ) 1, t . , . _.... •, , ---/ 1 .■ i _.:t • 1 / I it:, , y `S 1 1 1 .3 _ re; f � ■ , 1 • 1 . j ~ - ==. I ..- __ " I l ! .- - 1 = t ;1, -2, I 1 -3.S oll ~l.! ► MY . 1 V •7 = .1i P. ��11 I _ �41 ..:M. ._;1 t i/�=� -yl I II: 7 PEI a ` LI �_ -.t1 I I I . • 11 la .. ,„., _ 11 i; . 1..,, 1 ... . „, 1101• 1 , - .w a t ,1 ,!, .- 11[ 0 \ t I:- - i 0 I s ,, t . t " f 1 I • -!1 ai tL/ L 1' 41 ii: i tt r� _ 1 1 lit! _�i -' . 0 ■�P! • AW I ii .. %�r_ %rj .1 11 pi II 1 .2 ®r : . i1 1 J 0 iris ,,, L ',; s 112 us 1 --t. ,, , ® i lm 1' I 1 .111 . 111111* di II L CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 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 It 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 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 Eliness 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 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 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 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 the downtown area . Site plan. Bob Mithune: Hopefully you're all oriented so just briefly, this is the 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 . Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 2 C 11 II 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 bull 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? IBrad Johnson: Town Square. Bob Mithune: And similar to this development and secondly, they thought I 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 II this side , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . Brad Johnson: Now if you 're looking at the building, you can look at the II zoning downtown and you can have 15% of the front of a building can be t 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'v 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 II 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 Ithere. 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 car' 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 I 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 an finally, was approved once to our way of thinking because we sent the stuf II II , Planning Commission Meeting IMay 2 , 1990 - Page 3 Iover 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 U said that, he used to sit right there, he said the signs look fine and that 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 I 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? IJohn 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 I 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 I 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 I Health Services , which are businesses that are both owned and operated by Ridgeview Medical Center , to place high quality signage on both sides of # the Chanhassen Professional Building. As Brad suggested, we're really I requesting this for a couple of reasons . First of all , as Brad did elude 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. I 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 I 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 I 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 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, I 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 to talk in his stead. He feels very strongly that really as a major tenant in II 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 I 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. 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 I 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 I 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 I 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' 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 i 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? 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 . 4 '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 I 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 . I Then one for the balance of the. . . I . Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 5 IAhrens: So you want 5 in the front and 5 in the back? ' 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 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 more not whether you really had one or two signs but that there were no pmore 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 plans? Olsen: 18th , yeah . It 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 1 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 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 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? • • Planning Commission Meeting f May 2, 1990 - Page 6 1 1 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 11 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. Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 7 IIBrad Johnson: It 's a very large building when it's all completed. 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 ' 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 like two probably . Each one of these bars. Wildermuth: Then you would plan to do something like that? I mean 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. 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 8 Wildermuth: Okay, so there are quite a number that won't have sign 11 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 o 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 thll 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 II 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 yoll 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 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 . i 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 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 9 I 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 I 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 I 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 . IEllson: 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 I 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 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 I 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 I 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 traffic isn 't going to be in the back . The people go iri the back have I 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 Ican 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 I 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 I small ones , it would seem to me you would want that name on the building somewhere . Brad Johnson: It's on the pylon . IIEmmings: Okay. That's in front. Okay. That takes care of that concern and then the only other concern I 'd have is having more than one name on a I 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. IErhart: I think the medical industry has changed significantly and what we used to think of as a professional building years ago or even 10 years ago, I today has become much more competitive and therefore I think today a professional building needs that signage to attract customers. I know if 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. II Planning Commission Meeting May 2, 1990 - Page 10 II Brad Johnson: He's moving . Guess where he's moving? I Erhart: Here? Brad Johnson: Guess why he's moving . I Elison: Because you promised him a sign? I 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 II 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 I 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 II 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 I 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 II 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 Iprecedent. Olsen: As long as they're below . Conrad: The 15% but we can have, okay. Those are my comments. Any I 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 i 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 I approval of the sign proposal 5 signs on the north side and 5 signs on the 1 • 11 Planning Commission Meeting ItMay 2, 1990 - Page 11 ' south side for a total of 10 signs for the Chanhassen Medical Center with the condition that there be no more than one business name per sign ban. All voted in favor except Ellson, 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? ' Ellson: 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 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 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 alleviate the drain problem. What we really accomplished here is a new c i—: . ' • a •� . k emu" I iii>ifial f I'm:1;�• fUUUHHiif Tsiii.: lttultiiiisii Anil* Arvid Elness Architects Inc. , MAY 07 1993 CITY OF CHAN-0%0*EN 04 May 1990 I Ms. JoAnn Olsen I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 I 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 I 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 I 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 I plans. The plan sheet AS 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 I questions, please contact me. Sincerely, I ARVID SS ARCHITECTS, INC. i ." ' I . i Arvid Elness, AIA I President/CEO . I I I Butler North Building,Suite 200 , 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403 Telephone 612.339.5508 Letter of Transmittal -� y� . •• • "S 111 .�i i`1 1 1 1 1 1.� DATE: 1'1 . p _ ,111nT1177� V l 1 • • JOB NO: Arvid Elness Architects Inc. Butler North Building, uit RE: Ct ta.t�` a1t...�t $ a 200 �i 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403 Telephone 612.339.5508 •o: We are sending attached: �/.y�yi�„p,, g 3� f tie43114bI r 0 Shop Drawings X Prints C.11%-( C+44.11411-44,1314 0 Copy of Letter 0 Plans 0 Specifications 0 Change Order 0 Other_ ' COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION to +17 M alt AS 11M. fit•...), . r-�.tt;�..-t,a.,s 1 1 1 0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 For your information j8L For your use .0 Approved as noted 0 Revise and resubmit• 0 As requested For review and comment 0 Submit copies for - distribution REMARKS: 'Std. Lk*t4 odr ► Stdhr.' Awws 6: ele-Glom 11,315, 5► izmvtis et ITLI tt OA& visr-Ave."4.11%s 464M16 altrualmer 14 4.14 91 5,r i«n r,+.c... 4404 064.1 its ecrtltmmo e.4 -ede. 4•44,p, caw-t-A �..�.�r,..�5� d,,,,o• ' t, Seteri4 S rfr. 4140 14410, !Wm.-4 hacrgASA4e> • It4 ' COPY TO: gl ' etrlsri P• SIGNED Letter of f Transmittal : . DATE: t iIf11I1 �r "y� z • •x '• .• .� 1T117 i"171"Y1 T1 i - JOB NO: Arvid Elness Architects In Butler North Building,Suite 200 RE: 416.' '`4 o+ee+A°t— 15411.40FhJelot 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403 I Telephone 612.339.5508 To: �. }�.� • We are sending you attached: rt..bJN1 tirid•T: O Shop Drawings X Prints I G Ilu( Cit4 4.414.444 1614 0 Copy of Letter ❑ Plans O Specifications 0 Change Orde! O Other COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ' • tO 4Iq-101 &I AS drIM Mas x,te..,. O For approval 0 Approved as submitted ❑ For your information ' 341(For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Revise and resubmit 0 As requested X For review and comment 0 Submit copies fo' distribution REMARKS: *ti L-uks-frawdrt , VPIggiki Akitaw Efte'eAtcim r-NJtr't 41b leEsse+ne • 1 1 COPY 10: 1I&j 1i4o 4.40 t 6:aw, SIGNED LOTUS REALTY SERVICES I 545 WEST 78th STREET, P.O. BOX teb 23s- - CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 (612)934-4538 • 14 NI 4191 To: Chanhassen City Council Subject: Chanhassen Professional Center Signage The owners of the Chanhassen Professional Center currently have a request before you to approve the final signage plan for the building. The request calls for a building sign ban on the street side and the parking lot side each containing 5 individual signs. The city ordinance permits 15% of a building frontage to be covered by signs. This request is for 7. 5 . Because the building faces two directions (north and south), we have requested signage on both sides. We feel the request is reasonable and within what the ordinances permit. An underlying issue regarding this request is that we feel 5 signs on each side of the building was approved by the Council and Planning Commission once before. Please note the attached correspondence from Arvid Elness. ' The plans submitted to Steve Hanson on April 14 were later modified on the 17th with our proposed signage presented by Arvid and myself and were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Steve Hanson, in the ' process, did not modify the approved motion to read "Plans dated April 14 with modification submitted April 17." The plans were submitted prior to the two meetings and not after as evidenced by the dates of the transmittal letter. ' Signage is a very important part of the marketing plans for all businesses today and one of the major reasons our tenants select the Professional Center as a location for their businesses. Representatives of the Clinic and Waconia Hospital will be present to answer questions. Thank you for your consideration of the matter. • Si cerel , (7 Brad Johnso - edical Arts Limited Partnership • 1 1 1