Loading...
1986 07 09 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 9, 1986 - Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Siegel STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Intern Sign Variance Request to Allow a Temporary Off-Premise Real Estate Sign, Tom Klingelhutz,-Xpplicant. - Todd Gerhardt: What is being proposed is a variance to the Sign Ordinance Section 3.13 for an off-premise real estate sign. The location is at the intersection of TH 5 and County Road 117. It is presently zoned residential R-lA, Agricultural Residence. The Sign Ordinance No. 36-E, Section 3.13 allows for the erection of on-premise real estate signs and off-premise real estate signs for the sale, rental or lease of commercial and industrial buildings. The applicant was notified that the existing sign under consideration was not permitted by the Chanhassen Sign Ordinance. It is a 32 square foot sign and shows direction to Mr. Klingelhutz's Pheasant Hills Subdivision. It is located 1 1/2 miles north on County Road 117. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends denial of Sign Permit Request #86-6 for placement of an off-premise sign at the intersection of T.H. 5 and C.R. 117 as it is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Sign Ordinance. Ladd Conrad: Tom, we will open it up for your comments and typically variances, from a planning standpoint, we try not to grant them. Usually we grant them when there is exceptional situations or hardship or whatever, so why don't you take a few seconds and try to persuade us that you are under an unusual hardship. Tom Klingelhutz: I guess the reason I put the sign up there was, all the years I've built here in Chanhassen, I've always stayed away from the highway with my developments, which is good in my opinion for single family homes. I built Western Hills, I'm a partner and they are all off the highway. It has not created any problems when you come to the industrial development or commercial development, which always happens e e Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - page Two along the highway. The problem I have is to get the people to understand that I am not on the highway, that I am back. Not like the Estates or some of the places where you have all these problems. The residential developments do not belong along the highway, they belong off the road. They belong in secluded areas and how are you going to get people in there to know you are there if you can't put up one crummy little sign. Until you get enough people in there so the word of mouth carries your area. I would like at least until Fall, until say October, then I don't need a sign anymore because after then, there will be enough people in there to give me word of mouth sales. It is really picking up. I've got 30 homes in there now so people are starting to find it but I've had people that I built for in Western Hills that have known I am building out here but can't find the area. Have driven through here or tried to find it and haven't been able to find it so I do need some kind of directional sign. Temporary, very temporary. Once I get enough people in there, say 50 or 40 even, half the lots of the entire pheasant Hill thing, I won't need a sign. I only need it for a short time. I think this is one of the inequities of the sign ordinance. You permit the use of commercial and industrial signs but nothing for residential. You don't want residential along the highway. The commercial and industrial have their exposure. They don't need the signs. e Conrad: Barbara, do you think, since this is not the first one that has come in with this same situation, is our sign ordinance typical of other communities? Barbara Dacy: Yes, the request here is for a directional sign for a development in another location of the City. We typically only allow signs advertising the sale of lots in subdivision, be located on the lot itself. I think there is a matter of precedence involved. On directional signs, you allow for one development and you have Chan vista off of TH 5. They may be coming in and saying, well we need direction to the north. Chanhassen Hills on the south side of Lake Susan. It is the type of issue that can snowball. The community has to make the policy decision as to whether or not they want to allow an off-premise sign advertising the location of the subdivision. If you do, I would suggest that the sign ordinance be amended. e Tom Klingelhutz: It is a real handicap for somebody that wants to develop residential property off the highway where it should be. You don't want the stuff backed up to the highway. It should be at least 1/4 mile off the highway where residential should be developed. We have run into this so many times around here as this town started to grow where residential has been pushed up too tight to the downtown area for instance. There is a very good example. It has been pushed up too tight to TH 5 over in the Estates. It should have been moved back 600-700 feet from the highway and allow commercial development to happen but you know what happens when you build residential, nothing el se can happen bee a use people are go i ng to fight it right down the line. Look at McDonalds and some of the things that have come in here Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Three e and that shouldn't have to be. But if the developer wants exposure like Near Mountain, they stayed along TH 101 because they got exposure. It was easy to get people in there. pheasant Hills is a nice development, I think it is. Everybody that has been in there likes it. I don't know if you folks have been out there and looked at it or not, but there are nice houses and everybody likes that secluded area because it is private and it is controlled for residential, single family homes and that is what they want. Conrad: I'm not going to speak for the Planning Commission but there are going to be a whole series of requests like this because of other stuff happening in town, Tom. It is either start granting variances or changing the ordinance or being comfortable with the ordinance as adequate for developer's needs right now. e Tim Erhart: I guess my feeling is that the City certainly wants to help the developers as much as possible so there is a mutual feeling of working together and growth in the city but on this particular issue, I guess I have to agree with the Staff in their proposal in that I think it is going to be very easy to have a bunch of signs out there. Then the question is going to be, you've got your sign here on a great corner, the next guy is going to come along and he's going to want not to restrict itself to how many feet away from the last sign. You are going to get into a fairness issue. Is it a first come, first serve? You go back to the issue of the signs to begin with and the zoning ordinance says that the community doesn't want signs and we would like to see other methods of advertising the property. I think there are a lot of other ways to get people out to the property. In terms of real estate business itself and paper advertising and so forth. I don't feel it is that much of a hardship. Tom Klingelhutz: The realtors, they are a bunch of parasites. They cost people 7% money when you buy a house from them. For what. It's not necessary to put that burden on somebody's customer when it is so reasonable to do it with a sign. These realtors are a bunch of bums. Steven Emmings: You've got 30 homes in there now out of 80 lots, is that what you said? Tom Klingelhutz: There are 83 lots total when the area is completely developed and I got 29 now, starting on the 30th home now. Emmings: When did you start building? Tom Klingelhutz: Last year. Emmings: In the spring of last year? Tom Klingelhutz: Yes, I guess it was about April of last year. ~ Emmings: How many were done last year? Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Four e Tom Klingelhutz: I suppose by Christmas there were about 8 or 9. Emmings: Okay, so most of them have been built since then, and how many are actually occupied? Tom Klingelhutz: All but one. Emmings: Now, when did you put the sign out there on TH 5? Tom Klingelhutz: Probably about two months ago now, 1 1/2 months. I had a sign up first, a plywood one. I had Moore Sign put one up but the Highway Department hauled it away because the dummy put it on the right-of-way. Emmings: Did most of the people who are living in there now, find you without a sign? Tom Klingelhutz: I would say they did without the sign, yes to be honest with you. There have been some that have found me because of the sign and potential people that have come in there because of the sign. e Emmings: Has it happened where people have said, I was just driving by and saw the sign and came in? Tom Klingelhutz: Yes, oh yes and I've had calls because I do have a telephone number on the bottom. Emmings: what other means do you use to get people out there? Tom Klingelhutz: I have an ad in the Sailor every week and periodically I run an ad in the Minneapolis paper. My best results are the Sailor. Much better than the Minneapolis paper. Emmings: How many more do you expect to start? You expect to start 10 more by Fall, is that basically you plan? Tom Klingelhutz: Yes, I would say I should have 10 or 12 more built before the first of the year. Emmings: I guess I think in light of what we just recently did with that sign on the corner of TH 41 and TH 5, I drove in on that stretch ton i g h t com in gin ton i g h t . Th 0 sea r e the 0 n 1 y two s i g n son the whole stretch that are of that kind. In a lot of ways that other one was harder to deny then this one because the people owned the land, it was all contiguous. Under the ordinance, I don't think we have any choice but to deny. e Howard Noziska: I think that way also. It would be opening Pandora's Box if we allow a sign like this. I think if there is a great feeling, change of heart, we need to change the ordinance. I agree Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Five e with Steve tha t thi s would be tougher to accept than the one we already denied so from that standpoint I think that I would be inclined to follow Staff recommendation. Ladd Conrad: I guess I have to agree. I don't see an unusual hardship other than pure business, wanting to sell, which is always a hardship, but in this particular case nothing would say it is unique and not suspected or something that was not anticipated under the ordinance and therefore probably will feel that the ordinance should be upheld in this particular case. I would recommend Tom, again based on the motion that we have, and I have heard negative so far but there are going to be others that want to develop residential like yourself and that is our problem. That there are going to be many others that come in here. If you feel the ordinance should be changed, I think you should seriously voice that as this gets up to City Council. It's not only voicing it but it's coming in with what it should be and that is the real problem. What should the ordinance read. That is where it really gets tough. Tom Klingelhutz: I'm sure you can see the problem there where if you are building a warehouse, you are going to build it along the strip out here and you've got exposure. You don't need a sign. You put up a little sign that says for rent, and everybody sees it. 24,000 cars drive by in one day, but you build a residential area where it belongs, and signs are the cheapest advertising in the world. e Conrad: What do you do when you have four signs at that intersection? It basically defuses the impact of that sign. Tom Klingelhutz: You take the ordinance and say alright, four people who are going to put that sign up there are going to put directional signs up on one sign that says there is pheasant Hill, there is Melody Hill, there is such and such, arrow. Conrad: What I would recommend seriously, is you find an ordinance from an expanding community that deals with this problem and bring it in. Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eden prairie, those communities are expanding like Chanhassen or have and if you could bring in a way to treat this situation that has already been formalized, I think we would listen to you. I don't know how to deal with the problem. That is, I think everyone is real sensitive to helping you fill up your houses but I don't know how to do that. Tom Klingelhutz: I can do that too but I think the government of the Ci ty of Chanhassen is here to ass i st people like mysel f or people like you or anybody else and they should offer help with recommendations on these things. I think this is what these people are hired for and the Planning Commission is for. They're not here to put stumbling blocks in front of people. They are here to help people and be directional. e e Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page six Emmings: Maybe he makes a good point there. Instead of him going out and finding an ordinance that is appropriate, is that something the City can do? Conrad: We can ask Staff, if we perceive it worth Barbara's time, we can ask her to research that. Noziska: We just asked Barbara the question tonight, if I'm not mistaken, and she said that it was similar to surrounding communities. Erhart: Does that mean we can't show some leadership though? Noziska: Barbara, you made that statement. When was the last time you looked at somebody else's sign ordinance? Dacy: It was in regards to Mr. Korzenowski's application. He applied also for a sign in Eden prairie and they said, if you want to waste $50.00 for an application fee, go ahead and apply for a variance but most communities specifically prohibit off-premise signs. Noziska: So what we are looking at here is nothing that is new, unusual, different. It just happens to be a standard off-premise sign ordinance. e Dacy: Again, as all of you have said, if you want to do something different, create an ordinance to address the problem then we can put together something. Erhart: I would enthusiastically support some ideas on that. I think what you want to do is certainly promote the city, yet prevent a clutteration of the highway. The idea that goes through my mind and we might toss around a bit, is the idea of where we allow an introduction sign. You have 90 days to introduce your new development but then get it out and let the next guy put his in. Some span of time where between one end of Chanhassen and the other, maybe a total of 2 or 3 signs out there but that would be the maximum. Tom Klingelhutz: What you probably could do is come up with a sign design that everybody would use and if there were two developments on that particular road, they would have to incorporate two developments in one sign. A rustic type sign or whatever, that would be fine just so it is some kind of directional sign. At the developer's cost, of course. It would really be a simple deal. You could have a nice sign, timbers coming up on each side and then we're talking directional. Say this is pheasant Hills and this is Melody Hills or whatever. Something big enough so you could see when you are driving 50 mph down the road which would have to be about 24 square feet or so but it could be incorporated into one structure very simply. Very easily done so if you do build an ordinance you should have a edesign with it so it is uniform throughout the city. Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Seven ~ Noziska: That is a good point too. When you are looking at a sign and I see the discussion or analysis talks in terms of 32 square foot sign. Does that include the arrow? Probably not. Tom Klingelhutz: It's a crummy sign, I admit it's crummy. A guy let me use it and I put it up there. Noziska: So what we have here really isn't all that tough to deal with because not only do we have something that is not really indicative of what we would like to think of the City as, it is far beyond even 32 square feet. That arrow itself looks like it has 6 square feet or there abouts like what we are supposed to have for residential area. I don't disagree with you that we have a problem and we probably should address it. Maybe you have a good solution there or a good suggestion with the initiation time of a residential development. Right now the ordinance doesn't allow for that. Right now the ordinance that we are going by and the rules that everybody else is playing by, doesn't include it so that is why I agree with Staff on this particular point, and I don't always agree with Staff, but on this particular point that is the proper definition. e Conrad: Directional signs are not motivational. Directional signs assume that somebody is motivated. If we were to explore an addition to the ordinance, Tom, more than likely at best, all you are going to be able to do is say "This Way". That assumes that something else has motivated. Whatever the vehicle you use, direct mail, print ad, whatever but again, directional simply doesn't motivate a person to do anything and therefore I don't know that we are solving a problem. I think if the need is directional, there may be a solution. Noziska: I guess I wouldn't disagree at all with a directional but this is sort of, I don't know what it is. It is definitely directional and possibly motivational to some folks maybe. I think it is far beyond what we would ever end up with as far as an ordinance. I don't know, maybe 6 square feet isn't right, maybe 18 square feet is closer and 32 square feet for a directional sign is way too much. Noziska moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Permit Request #86-6 for placement of an off-premise sign at the intersection of T.H. 5 and C.R. 117 as it is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Sign Ordinance. All voted in favor of denial and motion carried. Conrad: It will go to City Council? Dacy: August 4th. Conrad: Is there feeling that we should direct Staff to take a serious look at solving this particular problem. e Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Eight e Noziska: I don't know about solving this particular problem. I think we might take another look at those sign ordinances and see if there is any great differences between ours and adjacent communities. Emmings: I think something along the line of what Tim said makes a lot of sense to me. You might say that once there is one sign at one intersection, kind of a first come, first serve deal. Once there is a sign at an intersection, the next person that comes in is going to have to use the same structure or put them together somehow unless he wants to wait until that person's 90 days is up to put it up on another corner. Something like that. Noziska: The multiple sign thing has to be addressed because the situation has to be addressed. Do we have a committee, commission or what is it that creates our sign ordinance. Dacy: We have an existing sign ordinance that has been in effect for the last 10 years and has been amended 5 times and as part of the new, the sign ordinance is part of the zoning ordinance. Basically, as far as real estate signs are concerned, it is the same provisions so we can easily bring something back to you before it hits Council which is in September. e Erhart: I was going to suggest that what we do before that, is you take the subject and at the next Council Meeting, go to Council and say the Planning Commission is interested in looking at this subject and see if they are interested in it before we spend a lot of time. Conrad: What I would like to do for my brief term as Chairman, is be a little bit more aggressive about how we direct Staff and what we would like them to do. We are kind of reactive, if you have noticed in the short time that you have been here, we are reactive and maybe not as aggressive as we might want. I think we can charter Staff, even though City Council may not be receptive. We could do it either way. We could say, are you receptive, do you want to hear about this or we can direct them to... Erhart: You bring two subjects up there, one is aggressive regarding Staff. I agree that the Commission certainly, if the energy is there, could be much more aggressive than I have seen but relating to the Council, if you get an unfavorable reaction to the thing. Are you referring to being more aggressive to both? Conrad: What I have noticed is many times issues will come up and we don't react to them. We hear an issue, we are going to turn Tom down and more than likely City Council will too but we don't think about the issue and how it relates to an ordinance. I would kind of like to really make sure that we budgeting Staff's time or allocating it. I think that is an important issue and I think we should charter them to go out and give us information to see if we should deal with this or not. In this case, what I see is Chanhassen will develop e Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Nine e residentially over the next couple of years and we will hear more of these and I would just like to make sure what we're saying. Noziska: I think we should be aggressive in spite of or whatever, with or without the City Council. I think we should address the subject. Why doesn't Tim make the motion since he has come up with a good idea. Conrad: I don't know that we need a motion. I think we can simply request that Staff does something. Do you want to design that? I think one, Howie you said something and that is you mentioned we should look at other ordinances just to verify that in expanding communities, how do they treat this so that will give us a benchmark but possibly also to say, if we were to deal with this issue and grant signage, multi-signage at major intersections, what would Staff propose to help give developers directional signage. Erhart: And maybe give us some alternatives and a list of concerns. Emmings: I think Tom raised another good point that you might consider while you are doing that and that is, if you are going to have someth i ng 1 i ke a 90 day per i od, would they have another 90 day period the next year if they are not half sold. Now he said he would like to have it up there until it is half sold but maybe if the spring is a particularly important time for you because it is the time of year that is especially important to attract people. e Noziska: I think Steve you are beginning to get into the specifics and idiosyncrasies of an ordinance. I think Ladd asked Barbara or whoever on Staff, sure let's check it out and give us some guidance and some options and what we might think about and force the Council to think about it. I think if we took it to Council, from my reading of the Council, they would say we don't know, we're going to think about it. That's kind of the brainwave that I get from those guys as far as sign ordinances go. They somehow don't like signs and I think we are going to have to logically address it. I agree with Ladd, I think we are going to have a lot of residential development. We haven't seen anything compared to what it is going to be in the next 3-4 years. Once they drop that prime again and guys like Tom can't answer the phone because it's ringing off the hook. Tom Klingelhutz: What I would like to see is Chanhassen could be somewhat of a leader in some of these things and not necessarily do what Eden prairie does or Chaska or Shakopee then come up with an idea for a directional type sign that would fit into the schematics of things for the community. Say you can't use multi-colored signs. I don't need that gawdy looking sign, I know it is a crummy looking sign. You can buy it at the flea market for $76.00 probably if you don't have lights in it. I just put it up there because is was available and it has helped me. e Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Ten e Conrad: As you know, we're not paid and you probably know that we are not over staffed in this city. There isn't a whole bunch of extra staff running around so if you have any ideas as to how to do this, yet control this. You know we are going to want to control it. We really don't want 12 signs on a parcel at an intersection. If you have any ideas, I would really like you to talk to Barbara. I would also encourage you to go to the Chamber of Commerce and see if anybody there cares because the Chamber should have a sign committee at the Chamber of Commerce. Noziska: Then again you are beginning to address issues. Let's say we ha ve 12 developer s down the road, how are we go i ng to deal with that? Are we going to be discriminatory, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole but when we do have a directional sign or multiple signs, how do we handle it? We need some sort of guidance. Emmings: How do you lease it? How do you get it down after 90 days? Conrad: That is the other problem. Gerhardt: On a directional sign, do you see a directional sign having a phone number for the individual who owns the subdivision on the directional sign or do you see a directional sign with an arrow and the subdivision name? e Conrad: A phone number, some will write it down but I've put up so many signs, I would never count on a phone number being remembered, being recorded on the sign. If you are stuck at an intersection you would, maybe. It is very situational. Tom Klingelhutz: I don't think you need a phone number on there. I think it is big enough, as in my case, an arrow is all you really need. Gergardt: Then you would have your sign out there without a phone number, just a directional sign without a phone number? Tom Klingelhutz: Right, I don't need a phone number on it. I don't need model home or nothing, just Pheasant Hills really because after a point in time, when you are developing a piece of land there is nothing to finding it there. People finally come through there that are starting to talk about it. Once they start to talk about it, other people find out about it but then they can't find it. They just need a directional sign that will say "Pheasant Hills Here". Conrad: On the other hand, I don't know as though I want to legislate what is on that sign. I think space will dictate how the developer/builder wants to use that. e Noziska: I don't know about that Ladd, but then again the whole discussion gets into developing the specifics of a revised sign ordinance and I Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1986 - Page Eleven e don't think I am prepared to do that but we can debate that at another time. Conrad: Again, I don't know how detailed we want a sign ordinance to be. Tom Klingelhutz: I think a sign could say like, pheasant Single Family Development or something in a smaller print pheasant Hills, big and Single Family Development, arrow. like that. Hills, below. Something Conrad: Okay, can we see this back to us in 30 days Barbara? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: where we Council, about. Let's try to take a look at it in that time frame and see go and I think Tom, when you are in front of the City I think you should be mentioning about what we are talking Tom Klingelhutz: The sign ordinance has been kind of a thorn over the years for people that are trying to develop single family homes. _conrad: Signage is a real painful matter. Thanks for coming in. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Conrad noted changes on pages 21, 24 and 35. Staff was directed to amend the original copy of the June 25, 1986 Minutes. Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of June 25, 1986 as corrected. Emmings and Conrad voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart and Noziska abstained. An informal discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Updating Process followed with the City Planner outlining the information for the new Planning Commission members. On a motion by Emmings, seconded by Erhart the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. All voted in favor and motion carried. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim July 14, 1986 e