Loading...
PC Minutes 6-5-07 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 AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Angie Auseth, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: HOLIDAY STATIONSTORE: REQUEST FORA VARIANCE FORA CANOPY SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD LOCATED AT 2960 WEST 82ND 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: Weare 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 oflight? Is there a wattage or a number oflumens 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? AI-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. Larson: Is the, is it Holiday? It's on 78th and 5. Why am I thinking that sign's high? AI-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? AI-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. AI-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? AI-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? AI-Jaff: Correct. Larson: But that's different because. AI-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! 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 oflight 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. AI-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. AI-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. AI-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 station at all until you almost get past it on 82nd 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 sign age 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 O. 4