Loading...
PC 2007 06 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 5, 2007 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Angie Auseth, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: HOLIDAY STATIONSTORE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A CANOPY SIGN ND ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD LOCATED AT 2960 WEST 82 STREET. APPLICANT, HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, PLANNING CASE 07-12. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay with that, any questions for staff? Let's start down here. Papke: What's the rationale for the restriction of the lighted signage? What's the, you know what are we trying to accomplish by limiting this? Auseth: We are trying to accomplish limiting the overflow of light into the evening sky for the Arboretum, which is directly adjacent to the property. Papke: So it's basically a dark skies kind of thing where we're trying to. Auseth: We're trying to keep it a natural setting for the adjacent properties. Papke: Okay. What's the amount of light? Is there a wattage or a number of lumens given off by the sign? I mean what, how much light are we talking about here? Is this going to be something you know that's just back lit and is going to glow a little bit or is this going to be like a, you know like a lighthouse? Auseth: It will be back lit. It won't be like a neon light. It will be like a normal back lit sign that you would see on other wall signs. Papke: That's all. McDonald: Okay. Kathleen? Thomas: Nope. Thank you very much. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2007 McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Yeah, I was wondering, okay it doesn't appear that there are any residential areas nearby so really the main purpose for this is to keeping with, I mean are the other gas stations in Chanhassen, do they have the same rules with the low signs? Because I'm thinking on Highway 5 that's got signs that are lit and in the air. So is there a reason why this particular one is being held to stricter standards than to say Highway 5? Al-Jaff: Most of the canopies that we have on gas stations are not permitted to have an illuminated canopy. For instance Shell gas station, their canopy is not illuminated. th Larson: Is the, is it Holiday? It's on 78 and 5. Why am I thinking that sign's high? Al-Jaff: Oh you're thinking of the type of sign that, the actual monument sign. Larson: That's a monument that isn't lit up? Al-Jaff: Well pylon versus monument is what you're asking about? Larson: Correct and they, so how does that differ from what these guys are asking for because it seems to me that one is, what is it 7 or 8 feet in the air or something like that. Al-Jaff: Correct. It depends on the type of zoning that we have. That area is zoned Highway Business and within that district you're allowed higher signage. This specific one is a Planned Unit Development and as Angie mentioned earlier, they do have two monument signs. Larson: Okay, so at some point will 41, the properties along 41 be able to change or will that zoning change so they can do that at a future date? Al-Jaff: There are no plans at this time to change the zoning to allow for a pylon sign versus the monument. Larson: Okay. And then is Chaska down the road or across the street? Al-Jaff: Correct. Larson: But that's different because. Al-Jaff: It's to the south of the subject site. Larson: Right, okay. Alright, that's all I have. McDonald: Thank you. Keefe: I just have one question. The applicant, without illuminated signage on the canopy, this site does not appear to be open for business at night. Is there any lights that are you know I 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2007 mean, I mean if I went by there after dark, would I be able to know that it's open without this sign? Auseth: Yes. This signage doesn't reflect anything regarding the hours. The canopy is currently lit with recessed lighting. The building has a wall sign that's lit in the evening, as well as the inside lights. Inside the building is showing that there are people in there and there's business going on. Keefe: Yeah. And so like when you're pumping your gas, there's light I presume in that area so you should be able to tell. Auseth: Correct. Keefe: Yeah, that the store is open. I just, you know in terms of the reason for the request, I don't know that that particular sign, you know if you see activity there and lights on, I think you'd at least assume that it's maybe open. I don't know. That's all, okay. McDonald: You state one of the reasons we don't want to do this is overflow of light because of the Arboretum. Isn't there a business directly to the north of that that signs out quite a bit of light? That is a rather well lit area. Al-Jaff: I believe the lights are internal. Inside the building. McDonald: I was out there last night and it's pretty bright when you get to the north of the gas station. There's a business out there. There's a, you've got the furniture store. There's a number of other businesses in there and you've got parking lot lights I guess that very well illuminates that area and that's directly across from the Arboretum. So as far as trying to protect the Arboretum, I don't see where this is going to add to that. I'm just asking a question you know. I have more when we get to the applicant's side of this but. Al-Jaff: The parking lot lights have to be down cast and they also have to be shielded. They may not exceed half a foot candle at the property line. McDonald: Okay. Al-Jaff: So there is a criteria that they have to meet. McDonald: It just seemed a lot brighter than that last night. Really I have no more questions of staff. Do we have an applicant here? Okay, then I'll open it up for a public meeting. At this point if there's anyone that wishes to come forward and make comment on this application, please come up to the lectern. State your name and address and address your comments to the commission. Well seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting and I'll bring it back to the council for comments. Kurt. Papke: I hear what you're saying about you know, this is going to be just a drop in the bucket. But on the other hand it's one of those precedent things where you know we let this one go. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2007 Then Shell wants one and pretty much everybody's going to you know, it's the old snowball problem. So I think just from the standpoint of consistency and as Dan was mentioning, I don't see a real strong hardship here for granting a variance. I think the down lights from the canopy and the lights from the inside of the store and the lights on the monuments, I think there's plenty of lighting and evidence there that the place is open so I can't justify a hardship from my perspective. Thomas: Well I'm sorry that the applicant isn't here. I kind of wished to have asked him some more questions or at least to get a better feel of their stance on hardship and while I understand precedence, it's just sort of nice to be able to talk to them what they wanted to do so unfortunately they're not here and Kurt you're right, the precedence. I can't see the others lights coming in and wanting the same thing so. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Just ditto what they said and I honestly don't see a huge problem with the lights but like he said, there's lights adjacent to that that's shining into the Arboretum. However, if we are trying to keep that somewhat natural, I'm inclined to decline it as well. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: Yeah, I think it's you know, it's a stretch to find a hardship based upon the reason for the application and I'm not seeing it. McDonald: Well I guess the comments I have is as I said, I went out there last night and I looked at all of this. If you drive south of 41 coming down, the first thing you actually see is the monument sign that's on the northern border, before you can ever see the gas station because of the topography of the area. If you're coming from the south going north on 41, you can't see the nd station at all until you almost get past it on 82 Street because of the trees. I would have been inclined to vote for this but we need an applicant here to tell us what the hardship is and you know based upon what I observed, it's not our job to make a case for an applicant so I too would be inclined to vote against this because I don't see the hardship. And you know that's it. I'm sorry the applicant didn't come to make a case. They might have been able to persuade us differently but other than that I think everything Kurt mentioned is absolutely correct and that's all we have to go on so I'm ready to accept a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #07-12 for canopy signage above the gas pumps based on the attached Findings of Fact. McDonald: Do I have a second? Larson: I'd second it. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #07-12 for canopy signage above the gas pumps based on the attached Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING: BEDDOR REGISTERED LAND SURVEYS: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF TWO (2) REGISTERED LAND SURVEYS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1050 & 1030 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND 950 & 910 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. APPLICANT, FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, PLANNING CASE 07-13. Public Present: Name Address Jack Fess 6280 Ridge Road Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions? Debbie? Larson: None. Thomas: No. McDonald: Kurt? Papke: I'm having a déjà vu. Have we seen this one before? Al-Jaff: Yes you have. They shifted the property line about a year ago and they cleaned up a few things. They came back and they said we forgot to do, what they forgot to do, or what they neglected to look at is, rather than, currently there is a cross access easement. They wanted to do away with the cross access easement for this driveway. Clean up this piece. Make sure that the tennis court remains under single ownership with the single family home and keep this as a buildable lot. And then the addition to the garage on this one came up about 6 months ago. Papke: That's it. McDonald: I don't have any questions either. Al-Jaff: Then you just need to open the public hearing. McDonald: Well is there an applicant here to hear from or? Al-Jaff: I don't see one. McDonald: Okay. Then in that case I will open up this to a public comment. Anyone wishing to make comment, would ask that you come forward to the lectern. State your name and address and address the commission with your comments. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2007 Jack Fess: Good evening. My name is Jack Fess. I'm a neighbor on 6280 Ridge Road. I know the Beddor family quite well. I represent my neighbors that are on our private road down there, so that's why I came up tonight. I really don't understand what he's doing here. Everybody seems to ask me when I'm walking around the lake every day. I'm retired and I guess I called you I think the first day when them signs went up and I told everybody I'd come up tonight. What I don't understand is, he just finished a brand new garage over there. That garage is brand new. Al-Jaff: Correct. Jack Fess: Why would he put and extend that garage without having this done before the Planning Commission? That's only been completed about a month ago. Al-Jaff: Correct. Jack Fess: There's a lot of money in that garage. Now does he just assumed he can move this over or what? Al-Jaff: No. No. Two things are happening. Jack Fess: Okay. Al-Jaff: When shifting the property line itself is done administratively at staff level, and you basically take that legal description and you record it with the County and it's valid. The owner of the property chose to take it a step further and that is obtaining a judicial landmark. The courts have to approve the location of the judicial landmark so that there is no arguments in the future as to where certain property lines are. Jack Fess: Does Mr. Beddor own all of that property under one single listing right now? There's 5 homes involved there. Al-Jaff: Correct. Jack Fess: Who owns what? Do you know? Al-Jaff: Yes. Jack Fess: Can you make that public so we could at least know. We've got David Beddor lives in the house next to the garage. We have Steve right now, both houses are being remodeled. Al-Jaff: Steve owns this piece. Steve Beddor owns this lot. David Beddor owns this lot. Jack Fess: Okay. The garage is sitting between the two, right? Al-Jaff: Actually it is located at 1050. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2007 Jack Fess: Okay. Al-Jaff: 1030 is vacant and owned by Frank Beddor. 950, which currently contains the tennis court and the driveway is vacant from, when I say vacant it doesn't have a single family home on it. Jack Fess: So what are we trying to do? Just leave the tennis courts there or subdivide this in order to build another house where the tennis courts are someday? Al-Jaff: May I? McDonald: Yes, go right ahead. Al-Jaff: This is where the property line sits in relationship to the tennis court. McDonald: Exactly. Al-Jaff: What they are doing is they're moving this property line in this direction, eliminating this line. So now both the driveway as well as the tennis court belongs to this parcel. Single parcel. Jack Fess: Which it should. It's sitting in front of it. But that now opens up a lot between Steve Beddor's from the tennis court to build another house. Al-Jaff: Well, it's always there. It's always been there. We are not creating a new lot. Jack Fess: Right. It meets building restrictions is what you're basically saying. Al-Jaff: Correct. Jack Fess: If someone wants to build a house there, he can. Al-Jaff: Correct. Even today without this, he can do that. Jack Fess: Yes, I understand. Okay, so right now the way it's set up, are these properties all under Mr. Beddor or are they broken up, Steve and David? I mean is, how is this broken up right now? Al-Jaff: Everything is under Frank Beddor's name with the exception of this home belongs to Steve. It's under Steve's name. And then this is David's. David Beddor. Jack Fess: Okay. Okay, that's what we needed to know. McDonald: That's all you needed? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2007 Papke: Mr. Chair, one clarification question on the basis of one of the other questions. Just to clarify where on the lot on which the garage was built, there were proper setbacks before this was made and there will be proper setbacks after this change is made. So from the perspective that that was being questioned before about hey, this was built before these things were moved. From the standpoint of setbacks, it's indifferent to that since they were met both before and after. Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Is that a correct assumption? Al-Jaff: Yes. McDonald: Okay. Anyone else wish to come forward for a comment? Seeing no one else come forward, I will close the public meeting. I'll bring it back up for the commissioners for comment. Kurt, start down there. Kathy. Thomas: No. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: Seems fine. McDonald: I have no comments either. At that point I guess I'm open to a motion. Keefe: Sure. Planning Commission recommends approval of the registered land surveys as described herein. McDonald: Second? Larson: I second that. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached Registered Land Surveys referred to as RLS 122 and RLS 123. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 15, 2007 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 8