1979 05 09
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION Ml!:ETING May 9, 1979
e
Roman Roos called the meeting to order at with the following members
present: Pat Swenson, Clark Horn, Gordon Freeburg, and Jerry Neher.
CONDItIONAL USE PERMIT
HOLIDAY-HAPPY CHEF
The planning commission has given consideration to the application, and has
recommended the granting of a Conditional Use Permit on certain conditions:
1. Permit not assignable - it is personal to the said applicant and shall not
be assigned without written consent of the city.
2. Description of Property - The premises subject to the within Conditional Use
Permit and location of the proposed blanks shall be shown on exhibits hereto.
It was stated by the City Attorney in regard to Happy Chef, that it is the feeling
of our office that from the standpoint of the interest of the City, those interests
would best be served by a CBD District zoning rather than a C-3 District zoning.
We feel it gives us a closer touch to the use or the premises.
e
Mr. Lee, the representative from Happy Chef, requested that the planning commission
reconsider the zoning, and various changes directed towards a CBD.
Roman Roos - I still feel we should control it under CBD.
Pat Swenson - I think we discussed it pretty well as far as I am concerned last week.
Clark Horn - I agree.
Gordon Freeburg - I go along with what you said entirely.
Clark Horn moved to not reconsider the zoning of that piece of property to C-3.
Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a report on the Sign Committee's recommendations
on the Happy Chef and the Holiday proposals. It was defined exactly what category
the proposed signs fit into. The cornmitt~resolved the question by defining the
Happy Chef sign as a wall sign, and the Holiday signs on the building as roof signs.
He made recommendations for the purpose of discussion as follows:
1. The Holiday sign would have to be on premise;
2. Lighting or all signs should be restricted to fuIhminating only the sign surface
and should not have a flood light affect on the surrounding areas; he suggested
the committee review a reduction in the overall si~e of the Happy Chef lettering;
3. The free standing sign proposed by Holiday should have been omitted simply
because it seems to run a bit afoul of the purpose of having a green space.
e
4. Holiday might consider substituting natural wood shingles or shakes for the
aluminum sign as proposed, simply because the roof itself serves as a backdrop
for the signage.
~-
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1979
Page 2
e
The Sign Committee made various recommendations. They recommended reducing the
proposed lettering on the Happy Chef sign from 30 inches to l8 inches. The word
"restaurant" was originally proposed at 24 inches, the committee recommended that
that be reduced to 12 inches in total heighth. On the Holiday proposal, the
committee suggested that the signs on the north and south portion of the Holiday
building be accepted as proposed by the developer and would be affixed to the
mansard roof, and they also recommended that the free standing sign be allowed to
be on the property itself, however it was to be located in an area defined by a line
projected 12 ft. to the south of the building and 25 ft. to the east of the building,
off the southeast corner, setting up an area that they felt the sign should be
placed in. They felt the free standing sign should be a maximum of 25 ft. in
heighth as per the proposed sign ordinance. The developer proposed 23 ft. It
should not exceed 80 sq. ft. in total area per sign. It should be internally
lighted, and the overall design of the sign should be fitted so that it is in
keeping with the rest of the signage within the community, utilizing the wooden
support structures, etc. They also recommended that both of the roof signs on the
Holiday station,neither of those were to be lighted.
A discussion took place regarding the free standing sign, as to whether we want a
sign in the greenway area in the entrance into Chanhassen.
Roman Roos - I think the spirit and intent of that whole section of land
really was predicated on the overall guide plan and I think we
have gone over the center line to get the joint Happy Chev/Holiday
unit in here, and I wonder when do we stop compromising what we are
setting out as the initial goals and guidelines for the City of
Chanhassen in the downtown area.
e
Clark Horn - I guess I would like a little better description of what the sign
committee has proposed.
Gordon Freeburg - I have a question for Russ. Are we legal?
Russ Larson - Yes, what the council does on your recommendation to allow that would
be legal. I don't think that the Highway Department or the State of
Minnesota would take us to court on that. I reel that it looks to me
like they might be subverting the spirit and intent of the highway
regulation.
Roman Roos - I think that if the sign committee did recommend approval of it, I
think also if it is within the permission of the sign committee and if
staff's comments about the future development of the frontier area,
you would have to make a determination at a valid point in time if we
should kill all signs in that area or not. I would have to go along
with the sign committee's recommendation. I would like to make sure
that the sign falls within the auspices of the controls and restraints
that the sign committee wants. It is close to their line, it does
give them good visibility of the sign from Highway 5, and-lit is pretty
much out of the green area up to their property line.
Gordon Freeburg moved to recommend approval as did the sign committee, of the sign
located on Exhibit . Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved.
e
'-'-
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1979
Page 3
e
Clark Horn moved that the property line be shifted and be a line continuous
from the southwestern corner of the existing property to a point 15 feet from the
southeastern corner of the building, due south, and the line be running continuous
to the eastern property line of the subject property. Motion seconded by Jerry
Neher and unanimously approved.
A discussion was held regarding all the items of the Conditional Use Permit,
and the recommendations and conditions to the same.
Pat Swenson moved to make recommendation to the council of the 15 steps as
addressed on the Conditional Use Permit. Motion seconded by Gordon Freebung and
unanimously approved.
The City Manager gave a report on whether or not the ERA Plan should be amended to
include the green area. He stated the questions to be addressed are, is the green
area as proposed in the Holiday-Happy Chef plan sufficient or insufficient as far
as your review of what this green area should be? Also, are the two land uses,
Holiday and Happy Chef, in line with this overall plan? His biggest concern was
really in the area of how the decision here on tax increment financing can affect
other decisions within the district.
e
Pat Swenson - I think I have to admit that I look at tax increment financing
differently now than~'I did last week, although I kind of got the feeling
that r believe my words were, we would like to have Holiday and
Erickson in here, but I don't think a profit making organization
should have to be subsidized in order to come in, which is probably
what you are saying, but if we have to give them a property to make
enough room on that land for it, then lets call a spade a spade.
Jerry Neher - I would change my thinking because I really did it with the idea in
mind that I would not have been in any way in favor of putting the
two buildings on the piece of property that they wanted when they
first came in here because it was just too much intensification on
that piece of property - too much building. By buying an additional 50
feet and pushing it back a little bit,to me it lessened that intensifi-
cation. Whether it moves into the green area or went into something
else, it still gave them more room. The city is not getting that much
more out of it, green area, it is getting 10 ft. That is all it is
really getting, but it is giving; them more area.
Bob Waibel - It is 30 ft. Actually it is 30 because they removed about 20 ft. worth
of parking spaces on the east side. At the edge of the building there
is 10 ft. more and at the 79th street edge of the entry point it is
30 ft.more because of the elimination of parking and also there is 20 ft.
more at the other end of the p~king for maneuvering area.
Clark Horn - I think the impressions that we had were where this was a desirable
piece of property even though we required a larger space to be used
to make it a feasible use for this land, and it wasn't necessary for
the city to buy a portion of that to preserve it, but that was just
in keeping with this as a commercial endeavor.
e
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1979
Page 4
e
Gordon Freeburg - I wasn't in on the discussion last week, but I think that I am in
favor of doing whatever is possible in order to get less intensification
and get them in there. Whichever method we use to do it, I think we
should do it.
Roman Roos - So you would vote in favor of tax increment financing? It was a
unanimous vote if I recall. I am not going to change from my
viewpoint before and I think your comments couldn't put it more
clearly. I think it is a very desirable piece of land and though I
would like to have Happy Chef and Holiday in there, I guess now we
have compromised and we are ending up with both of them in there, I
think we have compromised on that scheme and I was hoping they would
compromise and pick up some more land for that purpose, and I just
can't go along with tax increment in that situation. I guess for the
record we have stated what we felt and let the council act upon it.
Jerry Neher moved that the Planning Commission not reconsider the tax increment
vote of last week. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and unanimously approved.
Jerry Neher moved that Gordon Freeburg be appointed as Planning Commission
representative and Roman Roos as alternate. Motion seconded by Clark Horn and
unanimously approved.
e
Don Ashworth
City Manager
e