Loading...
PC 2008 07 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 15, 2008 Acting Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, (ZONING). Generous: Thank you Chair Larson and commissioners. We had previously reviewed some of rd this stuff on our June 3 Planning Commission at a work session. However when we brought the rest of them forward these were left off and so it’s a little bit of clean-up. The first one deals with the temporary signs that the city permits. Right now our ordinance would permit this type of signage on the property and so we want to, we’re trying to develop ordinance language to provide an opportunity for people to put up these temporary signs. However to limit it’s visual impacts on people driving by on the street. So the first changes proposed for Section 20-1256 shows up on page 2 of the staff report and we talk about banners attached to the principal building and then detached banners, which these are, having a limitation of height of 5 feet. Or 6 feet, I’m sorry, which is similar to what our portable signs are permitted, as well as having a sign area limitation of 32 square feet. That language would specifically exclude the use of some signage like this. Also we would limit the signage location to at the entrance driveway into the site. So on this specific property, since there are two driveways, they would be able to put up two separate temporary signs. So that’s what this is. And also we wanted to clarify that when a business opens up they can have a 30 day display period, but the language says that you either have that or you can do it 3 times a year for 10 days so we want to give a new business an opportunity to let people know that they’re there and give them their 30 days. And then also if a business in the, later on in the year wants to have a special event or a sale or something like that, that they can get additional signage for that specific purpose. So we clarified that under Section 20-1256. So those are the proposed changes to the temporary signs. Next changes we talked about was a community sign at a government institution like a high school. Chaska has their signage and they have the motion sign. Minnetonka High School has a sign and motion sign. Riley-Purgatory, the recreation area in Eden Prairie has their signage and a motion sign. However our ordinance didn’t provide for that. It required a separate conditional use permit so we’re developing standards within the OI district that would permit governmental agencies to have these signage and we have all the regulations. We’ve adopted, we’ve brought forward the standards from the typical motion sign, except for we’ve expanded the potential sign display area for the motion sign to 40 square feet in case we want to get more community information or education listings on a specific sign. We’ve looked at the ones that were out there and none of Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2008 the sign areas exceeded what we’re proposing in our ordinance. Some of the height is different. We’re limiting them to 8 feet, which is the largest sign that we permit in our industrial district, so there is some parity involved with what the city would get and what other businesses would have. Aanenson: I just want to clarify too, Bob used the term OI. I just want to clarify, that’s our Office Institutional so really that would be any of the school sites. City Hall is located on OI. The library’s on an OI zoning district. Kind of institutional, so we do anticipate that the new high school will want one of these type of signs, and the city is also looking at providing something like this too so it’d really be for those districts that would be more of the community in nature where you’re talking about upcoming activities. Whether it’s a book sale at the library or activity at the high school, provide that opportunity so that’s the OI district that we’re looking at. Keefe: So it’s not industrial. It’s office. Aanenson: It’s institutional. That’s what I wanted to clarify that it’s institutional. Yeah. Generous: It’s very limited. One of the other places, our Rec Center at Bluff Creek elementary. Aanenson: Yeah. The place we did give one to is Chapel Hill has a little reader sign at their school, so it seems appropriate at a school and there’s activities, as would be for city hall or a library, something like that so. And it may be some time in the future if the license center wanted a small one to say hours of operation. Those sort of things. They might want to put a smaller, that type of sign out there. Generous: So we developed these standards and they would be, they’d be permissible rather than coming through a conditional use permit so as long as they complied with these standards, we’d issue the permit. So and then finally, we were talking before about drive thru facilities. I mean currently the only time we address it is in the drive thru bank facilities, which is a conditional standards under conditional use permit. We did survey other communities and see what their standards were. We also looked at our, the city’s experience with drive thru’s to see. The big thing we wanted to do is try to address the, differentiate stacking requirements. We know that fast food restaurants have a larger stacking requirement than say a pharmacy and so we put these in there. The standards also look at locational issues and setbacks from property lines, especially from residential areas. And so we’re looking at adopting these specific standards as criteria for reviewing it and then any drive thru that comes in, as long as it complied with that, we would be able to permit it. Either as through a site plan or as part of a remodel of a building with their building permit. Aanenson: Then I just want to clarify on that too. The intent of these standards would be the criteria for the drive thru. We’re not, at this point, with this ordinance amendment, telling you what zoning districts. We’re going to have that discussion later in our work session but this would be the standards. And then we’ve talked about modifying some of our districts to allow different types of drive thru’s and we’ve talked about whether a dry cleaner has the same impact as a pharmacy, as a bank, so those are different but this is the criteria portion of it right now 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2008 which we discussed in another work session, so we’ll come back with a separate ordinance on which district they’ll go on based on your work session later tonight. Generous: So and then with that we would be deleting one section of the code which has the standards just for banks and incorporate it into new standards so with that staff is recommending approval of recommendation to approve the ordinance amendments to Chapter 20. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Larson: Questions? Kevin, you want to start? Dillon: I don’t have any questions right now. Larson: Denny? Laufenburger: I do have one. So when we talked about the service center, we gave approval to their drive up window. Was that a conditional use or was that a, what was the, what was the characteristic of that approval? Generous: It was approved in conjunction with their site plan. There was no conditional use standard for that specifically. Laufenburger: So it does, let’s assume that we approve this and it’s approved by City Council, etc. Then do we have to go back and report to the service center people that now you’re drive up window is fully acceptable and no longer any restrictions that may have been on it before? Generous: Well their approval for the drive thru window was specified as part of a site plan so they were to extend the taper, if you remember on the drive thru side. Laufenburger: I do, yep. Generous: Just to give a little more separation in the drive aisle. Laufenburger: Okay, so there’s no more privilege that they would gain from this than they already have as a service center. Generous: Correct. Aanenson: That’s a good question. Laufenburger: That’s what I needed to know. Thank you. That was my only question. Thank you. Aanenson: And again we tried to develop a criteria because I think there’s some things that are more audible and take longer, for example fast food tends to be a little bit more noise and direction with pushing as opposed to maybe just dry cleaner you pull up and there’s not as much, you know you pull up to the window. There’s not talking through a speaker box and stacking 3 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2008 and noise. So those are some of the criteria we tried to look at where, you know how that works and stacking, and then that’s going to come into play when we talk about later. What zoning districts seem to make some sense and what’s the neighboring land use. Larson: Dan, you have any questions? Keefe: Just one follow-up question on the permanent signs. You know when they first came out it’s sort of like wow, they’re really distracting. You know do they cause traffic issues. I mean has there been any sort of follow-up on that or would we put any limitations around you know what they might be in terms of safety? Aanenson: I think some of the discussion we had before in the work session was that because the writing was vertical and you had to read it kind of side. Are you talking about this sign? Keefe: Yeah. Aanenson: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were talking about the temporary signs. Keefe: No, permanent ones. Generous: Our concern has always been with the motion and flashing elements. Keefe: Right. And I’m just, I’m talking about just the permanent sign and what goes on it. I mean my eyes you always go like that when I’m driving down and you know…kind of eye catching. Aanenson: We did make some, we did make some changes with that. I don’t know, when we looked at the Chapel Hill and also when we had a business over on the Byerly’s shopping center that was very intense, so we changed it. The technical term is Nits and the intensity level and so there are standards for that, that they have to when they submit their permit, talk about intensity of light. Their Nits and then frequency of change. So that’s built into the ordinance too on this sign. Keefe: Okay. Good. Undestad: No, nothing here. Larson: I haven’t got anything either. Dillon: So I just have one thing. So like the signs, the community signs as it relates to kind of like a commercial sign. You know we have the development that was, they had the Kwik Trip that they wanted a bigger sign than was normally allowed. So what is the, are the dimensions of these and that, are they similar or is one bigger than the other and? Generous: These would be bigger than what would be permitted at a commercial site. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2008 Dillon: Okay. Generous: Especially the sign display area is a little bit bigger. The other standards are all the same. Aanenson: Again looking at this, kind of looking at the rationale basis for that, is the community draw on that and then if you’re looking at like the high school site being closer to 90 acres. In looking at kind of this square area and that draw. I think that’s some of the things we looked at to make it sufficient. Certainly I mean, I don’t anticipate a sign on, if there was to be a sign on this site, to be as big as maybe a high school site sign. Generous: Right, and in the staff report we do, we did show an example of what they’re currently looking at for the downtown area on page 5 of the report. Aanenson: So it’s pretty small. Generous: It would be minimal, yeah. 7-8 inches tall. Aanenson: Yeah. Dillon: So then if we adopt this motion and it goes to the City Council and it’s all part of the plan then. So if someone wants to have a sign that’s bigger or you know out of spec here, what is the process that they would then follow? Generous: That would be a variance process. Dillon: And what would our, or the staff’s attitude towards those, you know as a generalization be towards a variance in a sign request? Generous: They would be, have the burden to show that our ordinance does not provide them with sufficient opportunity there to advertise. Aanenson: And typically we look at maybe there’s some topographic reasons. Maybe their site is very large. Yeah, the site’s very large and they need something that matches the scale, just like we were talking about before so those are kind of, that we would look at those sort of things. Maybe there’s just some other reasons that would make some sense that they would have a bigger sign. Dillon: So is it in your, the staff’s opinion that these, all the details in the motion here, I mean would kind of minimize the number of variance requests that you have? Aanenson: Trying to. Generous: Yeah, for the OI definitely. We haven’t found one that would exceed it. The school was looking at a 8 ½ foot sign and we said that we were looking at 8 foot so they were willing to drop the 6 inches. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2008 Dillon: Alright. Keefe: I have one other, just additional question on the sign. Just, are we specifying materials in terms of our, because we’re specifying size, right? But in terms of what they look like. I mean they vary a little bit in terms of what you provided in the staff report, but I mean is that something that we have thought about or. Generous: No. That’s covered separately under our standards. It has to be, blend in with whatever development is part of. And so the monumentation would have block for instance if that’s what the building was. They have the faux stone finish on the bottom. Could be brick you th know like the West 78 Street. Dillon: In this example here is the brick tower thing you know considered part of the sign? Generous: Only it’s considered part of the height. The sign would be the rectangular on the right side. Down to the ledge area. That’s how we would calculate it. We’d make our rectangle around that. Dillon: And so it’s just an ornament or? Generous: Basically. Larson: There’s no restrictions on having any ornamentation on the signs? Generous: Only as far as height. Larson: Okay. Generous: So it’d have to be, it couldn’t be higher than 8 feet. Larson: Okay. Generous: 5 feet in some other districts. Depends on the district. Larson: Okay. Anyone else? No? Okay, well I’ll open the hearing up to the public. Seeing not too many people standing up the podium, I will close the hearing. And discuss. Anybody want to, Kevin? Dillon: No, I think the, it looks pretty thorough and you know it looks like it’s going to accommodate most every situation that we encounter out there. I think it’s good to try to minimize the number of variances so just make you know, lessen the debate and everyone has expectations properly set coming into these things so I would be… Larson: Kathleen? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 15, 2008 Thomas: Same thing. Laufenburger: I want to commend the staff. For 30 years I’ve been looking for a better definition of the term nit and now I have one. No other questions. Larson: Okay. Dan. Keefe: I’m fine with it. Larson: Mark? Undestad: Yep. Larson: Alright. I guess we are looking for a motion. Kevin, go ahead. Dillon: I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Larson: Do you have a second anyone? Thomas: Second. Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Laufenburger noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 1, 2008 as presented. Chair Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 7