Loading...
PC 2008 06 17 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, and Denny Laufenburger MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Kevin Dillon STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Joe Shamla, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: MOE VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-904 FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) LOCATED AT 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. APPLICANT: BRAD MOE - PLANNING CASE 08-13. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Larson: Are they planning on building another residence or? Aanenson: Yes. That was the, I’ll go to the, this is the new residence that they’re building. The existing home is this one and they will be building a new residence on site. Larson: Oh, I see. Okay. Aanenson: Yep. That’s why we’re saying we want to make sure we get building permits for the demolition and that’s when we’ll have the historical society come out and take pictures. I’m not sure if that contact’s been made or not yet but we’ll get that done. Laufenburger: Just to clarify. What they’re proposing is to build a garage shop on the location where the existing residence is. Is that correct? Aanenson: Yes. And then a permanent residence too. Laufenburger: Okay. And have they identified where that permanent residence will be? Aanenson: Yes. Approximately when we’re, well they have a significant area on the site to do that because this property itself is over 8 acres so that we don’t see as a problem. Laufenburger: But today they’re not in making application for building that residence? Aanenson: No. Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Laufenburger: Okay. I did have another question too. Papke: Go ahead. Laufenburger: It says that they removed some structures prior to this and that was a good thing. Aanenson: Yes. Laufenburger: Is it customary for us to get demolition permits on structures like that? Aanenson: You know sometimes for clean-up sort of thing. Typically you get a demolition permit for a structure itself, if there’s utilities to it, just to make sure that we tapped a well, or capped a well and septic. Those sort of things. I think some of these are more considered out buildings. Technically for agricultural purpose on agricultural land, you do not need a building permit. But when it’s a residence, then it’s not considered agricultural purposes or the garage wouldn’t be considered. The barn would or maybe some of those out buildings may have been so it’s kind of a little bit of a gray area there. Laufenburger: Thank you. Papke: I just have one question. One of the things we always have to consider is what happens if the property is to change hands or be subdivided, etc. In theory you could make 3 lots out of this and one of them would have this fairly large accessory structure. Now in theory it wouldn’t be tremendously different from those lots that have large accessory structures that were grandfathered in before we changed the zoning code. Care to comment on those consequences at all? Aanenson: No, and I think that’s a good point. That’s something the staff wrestled with too is kind of what’s the character of this area. These lots are significantly larger. Papke: Yeah. Aanenson: Because this is the original homestead being managed or owned by a family member. Sure over time, 20 years from now, could it be subdivided again? I think at that point we’d still anticipate probably the barn being saved. Hopefully we’ve got something in place to make that happen. There’s always that potential to subdivide again but I think the way that the house is set up with that, we don’t see that as a problem. Papke: You mentioned something that we would have something set up to retain the barn. What would we. Aanenson: Well we’d be working, you know what we’ve talked about with the county is looking at maybe somewhere in the city that we might try to find 1 or 2 barns that we’d like to try to preserve. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Papke: Okay, got it. Got it. Aanenson: And I think you know this is an opportunity that’s in a life estate you know. Papke: But nothing concrete on… Aanenson: Nothing, not yet but their goal is not to tear it down, which we support. Papke: Alright. If there’s an applicant here this evening that would like to color in the lines a little bit, if you could come to the podium and state your name and address for the record and fill in any details that you think that might be illuminating on the case. Brad Moe: Hi. My name’s Brad Moe. I’m the applicant. My address is 14372 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347. I think staff has spelled out the application and into great detail and I really don’t have anything else to add. I can answer any questions. I think you had a question about the barn. You know we have every intent to keep the barn. We’re using the barn and we spent a significant amount of money to repair and improve the barn. As far as subdividing, there’s restrictive covenants. Harold never really wanted any of the Hesse Farm subdivided other than the way it is now so his intent was to have large acreage homes and our intent is to have that as well and we’d be…subdivided. Papke: Questions? Thomas: I don’t think I have any questions for him. Thank you. Papke: Denny? Laufenburger: None. Papke: Just one. You mentioned your residence is in Eden Prairie. Do you intend to reside on the property once your house is built there? Brad Moe: Yes. Papke: Okay. Brad Moe: My wife is on me every day. Our kids go to school in Chaska so we drop them off at the bus at the farm so. Papke: Okay. Got it. Thank you. Okay, would anyone from the public in the audience tonight like to comment or make any suggestions or comments? Seeing none, I’ll call the public hearing closed. Questions. Comments. Concerns. Anybody have any issues you’d like to state? Laufenburger: I think it’s a great thing they’re doing. With the barn especially. Papke: Okay. That being the case, I will entertain a motion. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Undestad: I’ll get it here. Papke: Now conveniently located on the front page for us. Aanenson: Yeah, we’re finally doing that now. Undestad: And it’s all accurate on the front page. Larson: They know us too well. Undestad: Alright, I propose Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 08-13 for 4,145 square foot variance from the maximum 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure for the construction of a 1,568 square foot detached garage/shop on nd Lot 1, Block 1, The Hesse Farm 2 Addition, subject to conditions 1 through 4 of the staff report and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and action. Papke: Okay. Is there a second? Thomas: Second. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 08-13 for 4,145 square foot variance from the maximum 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure for the construction of a 1,568 nd square foot detached garage/shop on Lot 1, Block 1, The Hesse Farm 2 Addition, based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for a demolition permit prior to removal of any structures. 2. The applicant must apply for a building permit. 3. The applicant must supply a financial security for the removal of the existing garage upon completion of the proposed garage. The old garage must be removed within 30 days after issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new garage. 4. The accessory structure may only be used for private residential or agricultural/farming related uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: NICK’S STORAGE & PARKING: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-2; VARIANCE REQUESTS; AND AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ON PROPERTY ZONED FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT (BF), LOCATED AT 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE. APPLICANT: JACQUES GIBBS - PLANNING CASE 08-10. Public Present: Name Address Craig Mertz P.O. Box 623, Chanhassen Nick Bono McCain and Associates Wendy Langley Nick’s Storage Jacques Gibbs 6921 Beach Road, Eden Prairie Aanenson: There’s two actions that the staff was looking for tonight. One is to amend a conditional use and the second action is approval of sign variance to allow a monument sign along Highway 212. The subject site is located on the very southwest side of the city. Along 212 and Stoughton Avenue. This area of the city was given business fringe zoning district to allow reasonable use of the property. It’s part of a larger area which I’ll show here. Kind of this is the 212 corridor. The old 212. I just want to show you, it’s a little interesting through here. This is all of this, abandoned railroad tracks and this property is in Chaska. This property, the subject property and the property behind it is in Chanhassen. The cemetery’s in Chaska and the rest of this property, including the Gedney Pickle site is in Chanhassen. As some of you may recall recently Sharmeen Al-Jaff on our staff worked on the expansion to the electrical substation down at that end which provides Minnesota Valley Electric. The southern end of the city. So with that this area does not have sewer and water. We are providing in our comprehensive plan have made provisions to ultimately come down to that area with sewer and water but in the meantime there was a conditional use allowing them on this property the storage units. So in looking at the background of this property itself. In 1987 the City Council did give a conditional use, which compromised the entire 16 acres which would be both parcels. The entire area in red was given a conditional use to allow the 8 storage buildings, which was storage units as a conditional use in that district. As a part of that there was conditions that were applied and I’ll go through those conditions in just a minute. But the storage units in Phase I and II were constructed shortly after the conditional use permit and approximately 20% of the 16 acres, Phase III was left vacant as it is today. On February 10, 1992 the City Council approved an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow rental trucks. As a part of that there was conditions in the staff report. I’m on page 4 of your staff report and we did go through and itemize which ones have been met and which ones haven’t been met. Most significantly the storage of the trucks and trailers be confined to the area shown and that’s kind of this dashed area. The red and yellow was kind of the area that everything was supposed to be inside was the storage area limited to that, on that phase, and that there be no more than 20 trucks and 4 trailers and that they couldn’t exceed 26 feet in length. I think the intent was that it not be a place for semi’s to store was the intent there. So the City Council did approve that and the business operated as such. So in, since that date there was a request in 2004 to do an administrative 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 subdivision. State law does allow for administrative subdivisions if there’s certain criteria. That being the fact this has a commercial zoning district and it met the minimum lot requirement that this property was split. The split did not require a public hearing and the city subdivision did not apply. But in splitting the 16.2 acres, the conditional use still runs over the entire property so there was a lot of time going back and forth trying to figure out the implications of that. At the end of the day, the opinion was from the staff and the city attorney, was that the conditional use is still in standing on the entire piece. The issue with that is Parcel A is dependent upon Parcel B for impervious surface because if it didn’t Parcel A would be not in compliance or not be allowed to proceed, which we made the opinion of that that seemed not a reasonable assumption. Being the fact that the entire piece was counted for. So that was kind of the first issue that we had resolved that we did spend a lot of time reviewing and as you will see the city attorney, you’ll be seeing that later tonight, did make a recommendation regarding when we have an interim use or conditional uses, that we not allow those splits to take place. And the fact that we have this anomaly because we have commercial zoning outside of an urban service area, it can create a problem. So that was the first issue that was addressed. So the current condition as we see on here, I’m showing you the Parcels A and B. You can see where, I’ll zoom in on this in a little bit but this is kind of the area that some improvements were made regarding storm water treatment. I’m on page 6 of the staff report where we talk about the implications of meeting the conditions of approval. Again the CUP in 1987 said they had to create this detention pond. Again owners on the first parcel, when this storm water pond was put on the second. So the goal here was, with this parcel, Nick’s Storage, that the intent was to provide as much treatment on site as was possible, and which we believe has occurred. So if you look at where they’re providing storm water ponding in this area up in through here, we believe that that’s meeting the goal. Again the national runoff program wasn’t in place when this was created in 1987. It’s been operating this way. They have made improvements so if you look on page, the analysis that the applicant gave regarding, there’s an underground pond that was put in place and then the applicant working through the McCain Associates Study recommended, there were 5 items that were talked about there regarding erosion control blanket and concentrating the outflow so the water’s not concentrating if it runs across one piece to the other, that they create some riprap for that to occur. We believe that those conditions, that they’re meeting the intent of the original conditions so those are all recommendations of the staff report. Again, while the proposal took place, the infiltration ponds do not meet the NURP standards. It has been functioning this way and again we’re trying to find that reasonable balance of how this use is being run. Has been run and will continue until such time that we come down there with sewer and water. So with that, again we’re taking the entire parcel. Both parcels. The whole 16 acres to include that for the impervious surface coverage because that’s the first point. And then we resolved the drainage issue to the best we can with those conditions of the staff report. And then the other issue, the outdoor storage. So the documentation shows that the condition of approval prohibiting outdoor storage was an ongoing kind of violation. There was letters in the file to that. This applicant would like to provide for additional outdoor storage and that comes into play with the amendment of the conditional use permit. So they would like to have 60 spaces for outdoor storage and in Phase, in this next, in this phase. So the city code requires that all storage be 100% screened. Because they are within the impervious surface requirement, we believe that that’s reasonable. We just want to make sure that it’s completely screened so we are recommending to allow the 60 stalls as long as it’s being completely screened. Again giving the 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 use of the property, since they’re not using the garage. Any questions on that part so far regarding the? Larson: I’m confused. Aanenson: Sure. Larson: On the parcel split. On page 6 in the report where it says the 16.29 parcel was split and then under separate ownership, this is a violation of the conditions of the CUP. Can you address that a little bit? Aanenson: Sure. Sure. This is the entire parcel. The 16 acres. The conditional use runs over the entire 16 acres. So again the legal opinion that we came to with the city attorney was that while the parcels are under two different ownerships, the conditional use still runs over the entire parcel. Larson: So it’s okay that there’s two different owners? Aanenson: It’s not preferred. So the development potential is on this, the Parcel A which is proceeding forward. There is no development potential on Parcel B at this point because that’s the original phasing plan was to go with Parcel A. So that parcel will sit until such time that there’s sewer and water available. So that’s kind of in a holding pattern, which wouldn’t be any different. It’s similar where we’ve done cases where we’ve actually had someone put property in an outlot waiting for such time. They split off parcels smaller than required. Put the rest in an outlot waiting for such time. We have done other subdivision that way until sewer and water’s available, so this parcel is still sitting there and again we have a plan to come down there with sewer and water to provide to that property. As we would with Nick’s Storage, and at that time that use may go away until a higher and better use, which we’ve talked about with some of the other ones that area down in the old 212 corridor. A higher and better use may come along but again the intent was to give reasonable use of the property. It’s complex in the fact that the best way to do this, if someone wanted to sell this property is to say there is a conditional use. How do you plan to address that? Unfortunately that wasn’t addressed. The law allows it to be split and that’s an idiosyncrasy with our ordinance that we’re planning on addressing, so that wouldn’t happen again. Especially when there’s a use over a property that has development potential. Larson: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Sure. It’s complicated. Larson: I know. I was reading this going whoa. Aanenson: It’s complicated. So with that, so with that we kind of get to the issue of size. We talked about the screening. So now we’re saying you have to screen the entire site so this is a view looking on 212. Well part of their issue is that if we screen the whole site, how can you see them? Where can you see the signs because now if we go back to that first sign, they’re way 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 down in that far corner and there was some illegal signs on the property and I’ll go through those in a minute. Again because this is a BF district, a commercial district that was put in place back in the late 80’s to allow some use down in the southern end of the city, while there was old commercial district because of a 212 corridor. Gas station. Car lots were all falling along there so at that time, again this is going back 20 years ago. There was a zoning district put in place to allow these uses to occur on septic and wells. So the BF district did allow one monument sign per lot and a maximum of 24 square feet of sign area and 5 feet in height. So the applicant over time, somebody. I’m not saying these people. Somebody put some additional signage out there so what they did is, as the use changed when they bought it in 2004, re-named it and wanted to put some additional signage and so the signs that they have proposed, this one’s on Stoughton Avenue, exceeds the sign display area and the height limitation. Didn’t receive the sign permit. Sign number 2 on 212 exceeds the sign display area. Height limitation. Located in MnDot right- of-way. Again did not receive a sign permit. Sign number 3. Pylons are not permitted. I’m not sure how the pylon got out there. We don’t have pylons in the city but it’s been there, the pylon and that’s one they would, had requested to use too. Again exceeds the sign display area or the height limitation. No permit. And then exceeds the sign display area. The sign number 4 which is a directional sign. So if you look at what we are recommending for the sign variances is that again we believe that because it is screened, there should be an entrance sign into the project. That would be along Stoughton Avenue. So if I go back to that. Let me go back to that first one. That’s the entrance into the project itself on Stoughton. That’s a reasonable place to put the sign. And then also that there’d be one in this area on 212. Because of this complete screening we’d like to give you a sense of where to come. It is difficult to see. This is the entrance off of Stoughton is, if anybody’s been by there, like Roger said, it’s not the best sight lines for that and there is, because of the housing through here, there is a significant amount of traffic that comes down that way or cutting it short to get down to Chaska. So we do think that it is reasonable to allow for the variance to permit this 24 square foot, 5 foot tall monument sign along 212 frontage with the conditions we put in the staff report. That they get a permit and the like but we think it is reasonable because of the screening requirement. That they have the one entrance onto, into the project on Stoughton and then the other one on 212. It is complex. The project. Ultimately their goal, since they bought it, is to operate the business. To get a reasonable use of the property. For them, they wanted the additional storage. The complexity comes in, this got sold off. If we take the position that they’re over the hard cover without using the additional acreage, they would not have any use, hardly any use, additional use of the property so we spent a lot of time trying to week our way through what seemed a reasonable approach on that and the fact that the conditional use still is over both properties. So we are recommending approval of the one sign variance and the conditional use for the additional storage with the conditions of the staff report including storm water treatment so be happy to answer any questions that you have. Undestad: No, I don’t actually. I mean the area down, I guess the only question I had was again the hard surface. They’re two separate owners so until sewer and water comes down there, nothing further happens beyond this? Aanenson: Correct, and we have advised the other owner of that via letter. Undestad: So the bigger parcel, he’s. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Aanenson: I’m not saying that that’s what will be accepted but that was the position we’ve taken. Undestad: So if he comes in for something in there, then because of the conditional… Aanenson: He may appeal our interpretation. Undestad: But at that point we’d look at fixing the storm water issue anyway, one way or another. Aanenson: Yeah, but right. That’d be one of the things we’d look at too. You know there’s some other issues there. There’s additional outdoor storage on that property that kind of, some outdoor storage probably that’s gone beyond what should have been out there on the other property and the like so. Undestad: Okay. Larson: I have nothing. Laufenburger: Have we hard from any of the surrounding neighbors about this planned activity? Aanenson: No, because it has been in operation for a while and I certainly believe that that’s the goal of the owners. Is to have a well running business and so they’re doing their best to make it good and support the conditions that we have. Laufenburger: The second question is, is the ponding area on the extreme north side of the property. That ponding area will not be, that will not be enforced on Parcel B, is that correct? Aanenson: Well, it is somewhat functioning. It’s probably not the best. The goal is to reduce the runoff on 212 and that was, so they’re managing that as best they can, if I can go, if I miss something Joe you can catch me. But the goal there was that they’re adding the two infiltration ponds. One on each side of the building. I think I did show you the picture that shows of the bassinette, this one. So on either side of the building they’re creating those. There is going to be some runoff and one of the issues is that we wanted to make sure it didn’t have a focus point so it kind of would spread that water to a point of dispersement so it’s not creating erosion. That’s actually how it’s been functioning since the conditional use has been put in place. So with this we’re improving that the best that we can. Laufenburger: There’s mention of water drainage then stays in the right-of-way until it runs under Highway 212 via the culvert and enters Assumption Creek. There’s no evidence of storm water treatment prior to entering the creek. Is that Assumption Creek now under DNR ownership? Aanenson: Yes. They did close on the property. Laufenburger: And they would have no problem with this? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Shamla: What the applicant is doing here, they’re actually increasing treatment of this area. As I said, it’s functioned for this way for what? Aanenson: 20 years. Shamla: 20 years. Laufenburger: So what you’re saying is, the treatment is, it’s improving it. Aanenson: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Shamla: What this applicant is doing is they’re not increasing any hard surface coverage. All they’re doing is creating ponding areas to treat the hard surface coverage that was in place for the last 20 years. They’re doing as much as they can on site with, that’s reasonable. Laufenburger: Okay. That’s what I have. Thomas: Yeah, I have a question. The two signs that we’re talking about having on the property. The monument, the two monument signs. Are we talking that they’re going to be, I mean I know the one that is going to be visible from 212 is right now in the right-of-way. Is that? Aanenson: Correct. Thomas: And so it needs to be moved and does it need to be then the 24, is that in both of them? The same thing then? They both need to be. Aanenson: The one on Stoughton I believe is correctly located. It’s the one on 212 that needs to be. Thomas: Okay. But how about like sizing wise and stuff like. Aanenson: Yeah, and that would be to reduce it to, I know one of their issues is that the signs have been made. Thomas: Right. Aanenson: But. Thomas: That’s why I was just curious. Like why is it going to need to go through you know? Aanenson: Right, so we’d have to reduce the size and then it has to be outside the right-of-way. Yeah. And again that was that perspective that we had, it’s kind of going uphill so I think 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 actually it might get better visibility but that certainly was the issue, especially with more landscaping. Thomas: And the pylon sign? Just needs to come down. Aanenson: Needs to come down, yeah. Laufenburger: I had one last question. What are the sign regulations that Chaska imposes in the surrounding area? Aanenson: That’s a good question. I know there’s the galvanized piping in place in front. Actually we didn’t look at that. Sorry. It’d make everybody dizzy going back and forth. These signs, I’m not sure if they have anything taller than monuments out there. Laufenburger: I’m not suggesting that we have to comply with those but it might be important to recognize that this property is more closely aligned with the Chaska environment than the Chanhassen environment. Aanenson: That may be true but I think what we found in the past is once they become permanent, then it’s hard to, when this property redevelops. Also we’ve got residents on the Stoughton side so. We’re putting in our comprehensive, or our new zoning ordinance that we’re not going to put pylon signs outside of, we don’t have any that tall in the city. We go 15 feet so it’s just a precedent kind of thing too. Papke: I have a couple questions. The 60 additional outdoor storage spaces. Gravel? So there’s no additional hard surface. Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. Papke: But there’s nothing in the conditions that enforce that. Is there anything that would prevent the applicant from just paving over those areas? Aanenson: I think if you want to put that in as a condition, that might be probably prudent. Papke: Okay. And in the verbiage is additional. Is there any possibility of misunderstanding here that these 60 are above and beyond the 20, 24 that they already have or? Aanenson: Another good point of clarification we should put in there what the intent is. Papke: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here tonight? We’d certainly like to hear from you. Craig Mertz: I’m Craig Mertz. I’m here representing the applicant. Also with me is Mr. Nick Bono from McCain Engineering who will respond on the ponding stuff. Ken Engel’s here. He’s the regular company attorney so I guess I’m here… 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Papke: If you could just state your address please for the record. Craig Mertz: Ah, P.O. Box 623, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The Americana Bank Building in town. Wendy Langley is here. She is our operations and on site manager and she may have some comments. She can correct me if I say something wrong about the operational stuff. And Jacques Gibbs is here representing the corporation. He’s President. One thing I wanted to make clear on this is when this company came to Chanhassen and bought this particular property in 2004, we thought we were buying an ongoing business. The items that we are applying for are to correct I guess legally what we thought we were getting when we bought the property in the year 2004. The signs that are mentioned in the report were there before. We did reface them but we didn’t change the location of the signs. There was outside storage on the site. This application provides that the storage would be moved to that northwest corner. The so called Phase III area of the property and we determined any storage that was along the easterly edge of the property. On the, we feel that this property is serving a public need in Chanhassen and we are a resource that you can send other folks to for outside storage and the city goes on campaigns from time to time telling people that they’re not to store their construction equipment and their trucks and th trailers in their yards, and I think down on West 96 Street you periodically go on a campaign to clear out the outside storage so we think we are supplying a public need and a public benefit in the city of Chanhassen. But now going onto some of the specifics. On the outdoor storage, our request is that we get 60 slots. It’s not 60 in addition to what’s already there but 60 slots. We would prefer that these slots be allowed to be grassy rather than graveled. We believe that it would be easier to maintain as grass property. Easier to mow. If we do the gravel, then we’ve got issues about herbicide applications on the property and it’s, you just can’t run a lawnmower over these gravel surfaces without expecting that we’re either going to wreck the lawnmower or wreck the vehicles that our customers are storing on the site so we prefer to leave them grassy. Moving onto the signs. Again all we did was reface what was there. The pylon sign we believe has been there for 20 years. Now I went through city records and staff went through the city records and I think it would be a correct statement would probably be nobody can show one way or another whether a sign permit was issued or not issued. We just couldn’t find any records to it at all. My suspicion is that there was a permit 20 some years ago. Where it went to, I don’t know. We don’t have access to those records. We’ve only got records going back 4 years. The, I’m going to come back to the signs. As far as the ponding, we feel that to some extent we’re being put upon here. The long range solution, the good solution to this would be for the ponding to be constructed on the Dungey property on the north, in the property, and I would guess if your engineering staff was specifically asked, they would be telling you that the long range solution, the good solution would be to construct those ponds in the north, extreme north end of the property, and that the city should be talking to the owner of Parcel B to fix that rather than to the owner of Parcel A. Notwithstanding that we attempt, we did attempt to respond to the city’s concerns and that’s why McCain Engineering has supplied some of these drawings and some of the other things that could be done to ameliorate to the situation but the long term solution is to do the ponding. Have the owner of the residue parcel, actually is the bigger parcel of the two. Construct these improvements that they bargained for when they pulled these permits years and years ago. Now moving onto the economics of this, and you probably get sick of people talking about the economics of these things but the real estate taxes on this parcel from the time my client bought this property to today has gone up from $30,000 some dollars to $52,000 some dollars. More than half, our on site manager, Wendy Langley, as customers come into the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 facility. They are routinely surveyed as to how they came to that location and our research, crude as it may be, indicates that approximately 75% of the customers come to us because they’ve seen the signs on either Stoughton Avenue or 212. When city staff did it’s on site compliance inspection and asked us to stop the refacing of the signs, we have noted that since then that our occupancy rates have dropped from about 85% when we bought the property to 65% at the moment. Now can I say that all that drop is due to the lack of the signs as opposed to economy? I don’t know but we feel that the signs is the more significant factor on this. We are attempting to be a good corporate citizen here and supply a public need to the city. Moving onto the outdoor storage. About one-third of the revenue of this business comes from the rental of these outside storage stalls, and so we need some assistance on this so we can pay the taxes and keep building our business and if there are questions of me, I will attempt to answer them. If you want engineering, I’ll ask Mr. Bono to come up. Papke: I suggest we move on, maybe save all our questions until we’ve heard the whole story. Craig Mertz: Okay. Nick Bono: Good evening. My name’s Nick Bono. I’m with McCain and Associates. We did some of the storm water analysis and design. We’ve been working with Jacques Gibbs and Wendy Langley on the site plan preparation and I guess I just wanted to start off by saying I’m not sure if there may have been a misunderstanding with the intended storm water ponding for the site. We, at a previous meeting, I believe there was some discussion of the applicant’s ability to put together a site plan showing that the maximum storm water storage capacity for the site. At that time I don’t think we had all the issues resolved regarding the CUP in terms of whether the CUP would be all encompassing for both properties or not, so what we were going to look at was the maximum storage capacity that we could achieve on the subject parcel. On Parcel A in the event that the CUP was not found to be all encompassing. And so that’s what we had submitted to the city. That’s what our plan shows here but what, we feel that the ponding area as shown on the figure, and as was originally proposed in the CUP, would be the preferred method of ponding in this scenario. I noticed again in the staff document here it talks about the fact that the proposed improvements are more effective than the original holding pond required as a condition of approval in 1987. We haven’t done the detailed analysis on that but I, I guess that’s something that I would like to look at prior to the final recommendation because I, just based on what I’ve seen from those plans, it seems like that would be a better option as far as being able to detain and treat the storm water more effectively than we had proposed, mainly because there’s just a larger area to work with. We are really constrained by the size of the site and as a result we’re not, we’ve able to get some treatment as far as sedimentation and things like that but we don’t, we’re not able to get the holding times for the storm water that we would ideally like to have. Papke: So just to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying the staff report is in error and they are over stating the case? That the proposal for the ponds on Parcel A are not as functional as the original in 1987 proposal? Nick Bono: No. I’m not saying that that is not correct. I’m actually saying that I haven’t had a chance to analysis that myself because. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Papke: Okay. So you can’t substantiate the calculations? Nick Bono: Correct. And I don’t know if that, if staff has done calculations. Are you Jason? Okay. I was speaking with Jason Swanson I believe of the engineering department and he may have done some storm water calculations that support that statement. I don’t know. But yeah so I’m not saying that it’s incorrect but I’m saying that I would be curious as to see for myself what the differences actually are and if, I think I recall in some of the old drawings it had an outline that said the proposed pond. It didn’t go into a lot of detail as part of design, things like that. But again we feel that the more appropriate ponding area for the site would be a northern ponding area and being that we’re using the entire 16 point whatever acres as the basis for the impervious calculations, we feel that it’s logical then to not constrain our ponding area to accept the runoff from this small parcel that has the majority of impervious surface. If that makes sense. I mean if we’re using the whole site for the impervious calculation, then we should. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can we get a point of clarification? The other property has no usable potential on it. The only usable potential is on Parcel A. They have no development rights. So the burden is on this property. I’m a little bit confused on what’s happening here. I think we’re, if we say that we’re going to make Parcel B, who’s under separate ownership, put the pond in, and they choose not to, are we going to litigate that? Who’s going to litigate that? How that’s going to be resolved. We thought we had a reasonable solution for this project to go forward and at the best, we’re not making you meet standards today. We’re taking a reasonable approach to what we think can manage their water, and I’m not aware of this whole separate conversation. Papke: I hear what you’re saying and I was a little curious as to where you were going with your line of reasoning. I understand how you know in the perfect world if we could exert, you know magically make the pond on Parcel B, that would be nice but we don’t have that power. You don’t have that power. City Council doesn’t have that power. All we’re talking about tonight is Parcel A and what we’re going to do with Parcel A so if you could restrict your comments and your proposals to what we’re going to do with Parcel A, I think that’s the best way forward. Aanenson: Yeah. Nick Bono: Okay. In that case I guess I would just note the other items that were mentioned in the recommendation section. Storm water. I just would think that those are fairly straight forward in terms of 703 I guess. The applicant shall work with staff to maximize the storm water treatment and then there’s just some various recommendations as far as the alternative outlets and things like that. A lot of things that you know, those are things that we can definitely work through with city staff just looking at the two ponds on Parcel A. So I guess the, you know in terms of the litigation measure and things like that, that’s where I step back but I just wanted to share my thoughts on that. And that this submittal is more in response to the city’s request that we examine this option and that’s what it is. It’s not necessarily the preferred method but it’s what we have looking at Parcel A. Aanenson: Right, yep. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Papke: Since we’re on this sticky topic, any questions? Undestad: Well just so we’re clear now. Everything that we’re requesting on Parcel A, you’re okay with that? What’s been approved in conditions on. Nick Bono: That’s ah. Craig Mertz: The drawings that McCain did for us are what we can do on the property that we control. When he had control of Parcel B. The best solution is that the other owner should do the work on Parcel B. Aanenson: Right. Undestad: But we’re just talking about Parcel A. Nick Bono: As far as Parcel A is concerned that, what is shown is the best that we can do. If it gets restricted… Undestad: Is that good by you? Shamla: Yes as long as, I mean it wasn’t an idea that they’re submitting that they plan on moving forward with this idea because that’s what our staff report is based on. This is what they’re submitting so that’s what our staff report says. Papke: Okay. Craig Mertz: We want to get back in business. Fill up our spaces and the work we can do as far as Parcel A, we’re…do that work even though this is the better engineering solution. Aanenson: Right. I think we all agree with that. Larson: Nobody is here representing Parcel B, correct? Craig Mertz: They were notified I believe. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: Any other questions for engineering? Larson: No. Papke: Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Wendy Langley: …hasn’t already been added. We blindly walked into this. I didn’t know, we didn’t know there were city compliance issues. Storm water, runoff issues. Signage issues and even the previous owner, who is Parcel B. He lives next door to our storage facility. He’s Parcel 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 B. Was told to do all of these things and did not basically comply and not being litigated or held him responsible to it, now we’ve got the problems so my issue is really who’s responsible for it, and financially we’ve taken on so much of this. You know re-facing the signs. I mean had I known that these signs, they’ve been there, the pylon’s been there you know 20 years. Why didn’t you make us say anything? You know I just tried to make it look better. It really, really crummy looking signage. Tried to clean up the area. Tried to, the outdoor storage that they’re talking about, the U-Haul rental was not a profitable situation. Got rid of U-Haul rental. There were already rental vehicles, RV’s and things. Or not rental but people’s personal vehicles being stored on the property when we bought it so we bought this storage facility with outdoor parking, as far as we were concerned. We didn’t know that there were issues behind the scenes with the city so I just tried to kind of expand on that you know with our financially so. You know like I said, this is just kind of a just an issue we walked into and we’re trying to cooperate as much as we can to make it all work and remain afloat so if you have any questions, I’ll answer any questions you have. Papke: I think we’re good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Wendy Langley: Alright. Papke: Anybody else from the applicant? Jacques Gibbs: My name’s Jacques Gibbs. I’m at 15955 Carver Highland Drive in the city of Carver. So I’m the guy where the buck stops and what we we’re trying to do is work with the city and make sure that we make this work for the city as well as also work as a business and the challenges are is that an extra $22,000 of additional real estate tax is a burden. As a matter of fact most of that is being compensation from our outdoor storage is paying that. We didn’t make a profit. One of the challenges that, and I’m saying that this is that if you look in the records it goes back to almost 5 years ago. Parcel B was asked to do the ponding and it was never completed. Well that’s really none of my business except now it is my business because I bought a piece of property that’s now suggested…so one of my recommendations is, the next door neighbor, Mr. Dungey is a friend. Good guy. Can Mr. Dungey and I hook up together financially and put that pond in on his property? And so I take the same dollars where we do it in the property that we’re talking about on Section A and put those same dollars for B and everybody comes out happy. Papke: So are you suggesting you’d like to table the proposal that’s in front of us here tonight? And go back to the drawing board. Jacques Gibbs: That would be my choice. I could talk to Mr. Dungey or whatever you suggest I do and see if we can work something out. Craig Mertz: That’s going to mean tabling. Laufenburger: What might Mr. Dungey’s motivation be to cooperate with you? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Jacques Gibbs: Maybe ultimately to let that property have more value. Because I’m assuming the way the property is now, it’s not very user friendly. Aanenson: There are no development rights on that piece of property. The development rights were placed on with the conditional use onto the parcel that you have. So in my opinion, I’m with Commissioner Laufenburger, their motivation and incentive is probably pretty low. For that to occur. Laufenburger: That’s what I was thinking. Aanenson: Yeah. That’s kind of what I think. There might be some good will but there’s no economic, he has to wait until sewer and water are available, is available for additional development to occur on that property. Larson: Do you know, can you say what, I mean it looks like there’s trails. Do people ride motorcycles or something down there? Jacques Gibbs: Grandchildren. Motocross. Larson: So it’s all just family. It’s not like people know about it and go down? Jacques Gibbs: No, it’s all private. Papke: At the end of the day it’s your application. Now as you say, the buck stops with you but at this point you know, given the risk factors here, it might be the best path forward to at least move forward legally here with the City Council with what you have. You don’t have to you know, at the end of the day you know if you strike a deal with Mr. Dungey and come back with a second proposal, you know that’s your discretion but you may want to proceed with what you have on the table today just to make sure you don’t lose your slot if you will so. Jacques Gibbs: Sure. Appreciate the coaching. Maybe that’s what we should do. See if there’s anything else I’d like to add to the discussion. Oh, I thought it was a great question about Chaska and their signage and what’s been really nice about that pylon sign that’s been there for 20 years, is it is a really good sign. We’re going to reface it is all. We’ll just reface it for Nick’s Storage because that would be a great tool for us to have just an attraction to bring in new business. And that’s now gone. Has been gone for 9 months. If there’s any way to keep that, even though it’s in Chanhassen, it’s somewhat similar to the Chaska district. I’d like to suggest that if we could have that back, would be great. Papke: Okay. Any other questions? Comments? Thank you very much. Jacques Gibbs: Thank you. Papke: Okay. I think we’ve heard. Craig Mertz: Every one. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Papke: Pretty much all the applicants here so if there’s any one from the public here that perhaps I’m not seeing. Stand up and speak to this issue. Seeing none, close the public hearing and bring it back for comments and deliberation. I’ll start on my right. Thomas: Okay. It’s a real touch case just because of all the things that are going on and how the property, the conditional use permit over the whole thing and the only way Parcel A can be used is to take into account the property that’s on Parcel B, but they’re separate and obviously the owner of the entire thing before you separated was, left lots to be desired on how he maintained his property so I’m kind of just trying to figure it out myself so I don’t know. I’m in agreeance with what the city’s asking for but I just need to just hear some more comments I think. Laufenburger: I just need a clarification. The, we have heard from the staff and the staff is recommending that approval be given as stipulated according to the report. It sounds like the applicant is considering…withhold moving forward but I think clearly what I heard was they do want to move forward with this approval. A couple of the comments that I heard. I think Mr. Mertz and Wendy both said that this was, they didn’t buy what they thought they were buying, and I just think I’m sorry but I don’t think that has any merit to this case whatsoever. Right now we’re just trying to you know give them approval to do the things that the staff has recommended. I guess the other thing is, I just wonder what’s going to happen to traffic that signs would bring in once the 312 corridor is completed. And maybe there’s still local traffic that comes there but I think that the signs would be adequate as the staff has recommended and so I’m prepared to say approval on it. Larson: Well, my thoughts are pretty much the same as Denny’s except that the fact of the matter is, they’ve had these signs for 20 years and I don’t know if there’s any kind of grandfather thing in but I think possibly when they purchased the property maybe due course and not everything was researched quite as well as it should have been. Therefore we can’t change things based on change the city’s rules on that. The fact that had it maybe been approved in the first place then I would have said yeah, maybe we could do that but unfortunately I think that you know, if we could go ahead and move forward with the signs, I feel really bad that you know, I don’t understand what causes taxes to go up that much in 4 years or however many years it’s been. But it seems to be somewhat of a hardship that they’re faced because they can’t have the signage that they thought they were going to have, so I’m a little bit wanting maybe a compromise but I don’t know if that’s possible. If the city would be a little bit more lenient in allowing them to at least put up the lower signs or something so they can still have similar signage to what they had but more improved. You know obviously they wanted it to look better and they went to great lengths to get it that way so I’m kind of for the citizens on that one so. That’s really all I have. Papke: Mark. Undestad: I really don’t have anything to add. I’m on the side with the way the staff has it drafted up there. I’m inclined to go with that. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Papke: Okay. I just have a couple comments. One of them on the fact that we weren’t able to prove that a sign permit was not granted for the non-conforming signs. You can’t prove a negative. I mean just because we didn’t find any record in the archives, that you know a permit was never issued. You can never prove that so I think that one is, doesn’t hold water. And the arguments for keeping the pylon sign, etc, I think any business in the city could make a good case that if they were allowed leniency outside the zoning regulations for signage, that they could improve their business. That includes the viable ones and the ones that aren’t doing very well and so I don’t think we can take a look and say well, you know yes that would make the business work better but I think every business in the city could make the same case. So I’m not inclined to support any slippage on that one so. Okay. With that, would someone like to make a motion? Unless there’s any other comments. Laufenburger: I’ll try. The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #87-2 to permit. Aanenson: It should say a total of 60 so I think that’s. Laufenburger: Strike the word additional? Papke: Yeah. Laufenburger: Okay. To permit a total of 60 outdoor storage spaces to be located in Phase III of the site subject to conditions 1 through 12 in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. And furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of a sign variance to allow one monument sign along Highway 212 frontage, in addition to the permitted monument along Stoughton Avenue, with conditions 1 through 4 in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Papke: Is there a second? Undestad: Second. Papke: I’d like to propose a friendly amendment. I’d like to propose a condition number 13 that the 60 additional spaces are not to increase the hard surface coverage. That they can be gravel or grass, whatever the applicant would like, but they shall not be paved. Would that be okay with. Laufenburger: Accepted. Papke: Okay. Thank you very much. Laufenburger moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #87-2 to permit a total of 60 outdoor storage spaces to be located in Phase III of the site with the following conditions: 1.The 60 parking stalls for various vehicle storage, shall be confined to the area labeled Phase III in the staff report and the area shall have a gravel surface. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 2.The applicant shall provide 15 Black Hills Spruce along the fence line to provide 100 percent screening of the outdoor storage area. 3.The applicant shall work with staff to maximize the stormwater treatment on Parcel A. a.Based on the calculations for the combined pond, the capacity will be exceeded for the north pond during the 100-year event. An emergency overflow must be shown for both ponds. This emergency overflow shall require permanent stabilization. b.An alternative outlet must be utilized to minimize disruption to Parcel B. 4.The submitted stormwater calculation s shall be revised as necessary prior to installation of the Infiltration Ponds. 5.Storm pipe material shall be HDPE or RCP. 6.Based upon existing soil conditions and pond design, infiltration is likely to occur. This should be accounted for in the model. 7.A detailed erosion control plan will be needed. At a minimum this plan shall include: a.Erosion control blanket (category 3) on all slopes 3:1 or steeper. This includes the ponds. b.Perimeter silt fence needs to be shown. This shall be heavy duty down gradient of the two pond features and any removals associated with the storm sewer placement. c.A re-vegetation plan is required for all disturbed areas. Deep-rooted woody vegetation should be used along the north side of the north pond. 8.The area adjacent to the northern limits of the proposed outdoor storage area should have some type of filter strip and energy dissipation best management practice. 9.The applicant shall provide security to ensure the infiltration ponds are installed. 10.Any discharge to the Highway 212 right-of-way requires written approval from MnDOT. 11.A drainage and utility easement shall be placed over the infiltration ponds up to the high water level. 12.Any additional development to Parcel A or Parcel B shall require additional stormwater ponding. 13. The 60 outdoor storage units shall not increase the hard surface coverage on the site. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Laufenburger moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a sign variance to allow a monument sign along Highway 212 frontage, in addition to the permitted monument sign along Stoughton Avenue with the following conditions: 1.The monument sign along Highway 212 shall comply with the sign ordinance requirements of the Chanhassen City Code. 2.The sign along Stoughton Avenue shall comply with the sign ordinance requirements of the Chanhassen City Code. 3.The pylon sign along Highway 212 must be removed. 4.A sign permit must be approved prior to replacing the monument signs along Stoughton Avenue and Highway 212. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING. Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Papke, members of the Planning Commission. At your last rd work session meeting, which was on June 3 of this year, we brought a number of potential code amendments before you. We discussed them at your work session and this is all in anticipation of the adoption of the 2030 comprehensive plan. We’re preparing the updates of the city code to coincide with the adoption of the plan. Some of the amendments that we are proposing this time around will focus on signage, conditional use permits, interim use permits, pre-application meetings with developers or homeowners, planned unit development, commercial industrial buffer yard as well as setback requirements. So the first section of, as far as recommendation. As far as amendments go deals with administration, enforcement and conditional use permits. The first requirement that we are proposing deals with pre-application meeting with developers. Let us make sure that they are in compliance with ordinances. That the comprehensive plan allows the use that they are proposing, so before they invest a large amount of money into a plan, we’re requesting that we formalize the language in the ordinances requiring the developer or the homeowner to meet with staff and then proceed with an application. Another amendment that we are looking at deals with district regulations, specifically planned unit developments. Currently we have excessive setback and buffer requirements. It does not truly serve a practical purpose. What we are recommending is that we reduce the setback to 20 feet on planned unit developments. That 20 feet is the setback from exterior property lines along right-of-way. Whenever you have uses, industrial uses that abut residential areas we’re recommending that the setback be increased anywhere between 50 feet and 100 feet. Once in a while you have a residential area next to an industrial site and you already have an existing buffer, be it existing vegetation or change in topography so you have an existing buffer between those two uses. Our code does not allow us any flexibility to take advantage of these existing topographic or existing 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 vegetation buffers. So staff’s recommendation is to allow us the flexibility in making recommendations to the Planning Commission or City Council on these situations. Papke: I have a question on the way this is worded Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Okay. Papke: It says between 50 and 100 may be required. I always get a little nervous whenever I see words like may be required in the regulations. Is the somewhat tentative language intentional? That you want to give yourself the freedom to go outside 50 to 100. Can you just clarify what the intent is there. Al-Jaff: Minimum 50 foot setback. The maximum is 100 feet as far as, whenever you have residential next to industrial is the intent. Papke: So and. Al-Jaff: And it depends on how effective the buffer is. Papke: Right. Right. So does the word may apply here? I mean that’s what I guess. Aanenson: I agree with you. We need a qualifier. Depending on the type of buffer, surrounding a land use so. So it should say you know, because it could be a buffer that could go away. Papke: Between 50 and 100 shall be required. Aanenson: Right. Al-Jaff: Instead of may. Papke: Yeah. Al-Jaff: Okay. Aanenson: Yeah, because if you look in the exact, on page 3. If you look at the language that we’re looking at. I think your point Kurt is correct. The City Council will make a determination depending on the adequacy. Papke: Yeah. Aanenson: So just to say shall would be better than may. Al-Jaff: Okay. One of the issues that we have dealt with in the past is the limited building height in neighborhood business district. It’s limited to one story and there has been times when we’ve come before the Planning Commission and requested variances. Park Nicollet is an example of that scenario. What staff is recommending that if a building is in a neighborhood 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 business and it immediately abuts a residential district without being separated by a street, then you limit the height of the building to two story. However if you do have a separation through a public right-of-way street, then the height limit be up to three story. Aanenson: We did identify the existing neighborhood business districts just so you’d be, now along that we’re going 3 stories throughout the city. If you look at the one that we recently approved, the new Walgreen’s on, the one at 7 and 41 would be a neighborhood business district. The other property would be the, where we have underlying PUD’s which would be the Kraus Anderson project which is Crossings. Laufenburger: Crossroads. Al-Jaff: Crossroads of Chanhassen. Aanenson: Which has the underlying, which has more than one story in those. Then the other BN district would be, there’s some on Highway 5. And then the other one that’s up here, BN as Sharmeen mentioned, was the Park Nicollet and there’s some along that stretch of Highway 5 so it’s, before we came to this recommendation we did spend some time looking at where those were in the city. Al-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: That we felt that would make a good transition. Again part of this is when you do a variance there’s different tests for the variance and so we didn’t want to always have to make that a requirement. That it’s more built in. If there’s a separation. Al-Jaff: And as Kate said, I mean sometimes we come before you and say this is for design purposes, and the variance requires that we prove a hardship. So it puts us in a very awkward position, and I’m sure it puts the Planning Commission in that position as well. Papke: And I think as our density increases we want to encourage more vertical. Al-Jaff: Exactly. Okay, buffer yards in all commercial districts. One of the issues again, similar to what we talked about earlier with the planned unit development. Excessive buffer yard setbacks plus buffer that serves no practical reason. Here is an example. We just took the Highway Business District and what you see in red is the required setback but in addition to that, the current language in the code requires a buffer, and with the buffer some of these, the buildable site on these parcels becomes non-existent. And what will happen is we will come before you and say, it’s a lot of record and we need variances. And what are we buffering from? What staff is recommending is that we incorporate the buffer into the required setback. The only exception would be the industrial immediately abutting residential districts, and I will change the language to say shall instead of may. And that’s all we have on the buffer and setback section of the ordinance. We’ll then go into signage. The first issue that we have is campaign signs. We’re just trying to regulate them so that they are consistent with state statute. Right now we don’t have language dealing with location outside. Location within sight triangle areas. We also 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 don’t have time lines. Time limits as to when they can put the signs up and when they should remove them, so we’re just trying to be consistent with state statute. Papke: Sharmeen, is it clear in the context for this one what the sight triangle is? Al-Jaff: Well, if we look at definitions in our city code, the definition will be in there. Papke: Okay, great. Aanenson: Actually I think there’s a graphic too. Al-Jaff: You are correct. There is one. Papke: Great. Al-Jaff: Wall signs. One of the issues that we deal with, and we deal with this one often, is the limited size of logos. Currently our ordinance limits them to 15%. We also require individual letters on the sign, the logo, as well as registered trademarks, symbols, display messages. What staff is recommending is we increase the size of the logo to 20% of the total sign area. We looked at different scenarios. 15, 20, 25, 30 percent of sign area and we believe that the 20% is quire proportional with the rest of the sign. Papke: When last we met you were proposing. Aanenson: I was just going to mention that. We went back and revisited that. I don’t think everybody on staff was on the same page on that one. We went back and looked at the 30 and I think that’s a bit excessive. Papke: It seems somewhat arbitrary so. Aanenson: We went back and kind of reviewed some of the sign permits that we had in the city and some…were creative and that’s what we want to encourage. That branding. That creativity and 20% seemed a much more appropriate scale so we’re moving up. Do you think it’s too small? Papke: No. I’m just curious you know, we’re, you know that’s a pretty wide variance from 15 to 30. I mean we doubled the size and now we’re almost 2/3 the way back to where we were again. Aanenson: I apologize on the 30. Larson: What would this be? Aanenson: On that? Oh for your cup? Larson: No, I’m talking Caribou. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Aanenson: Yeah, but if you look on their sign on their wall, it’s much bigger. The Caribou is much bigger. Larson: The word. Aanenson: Correct. Yeah. Larson: And this is much smaller. Aanenson: Correct. Larson: Okay. Aanenson: I would agree and I apologize for that. We had a lengthy discussion the next morning on that because not all of us, speaking for myself, were in agreement on that 30% so we did go back and revisit that. Larson: I disagree with the 20% actually. Aanenson: You can recommend whatever you want. Larson: I recommend 30. If it’s a cool logo. If it’s a nice logo. Aanenson: Well that’s the thing. That’s the hard, that’s the judgmental part. Larson: It has to be cool. Aanenson: Yeah. Larson: Well it has to be well done. Why would you want it big if it wasn’t well done? Papke: Wasn’t the rationale was the fast food signs where you know, you know for McDonald’s. You know… Undestad: These are all limited to square footages anyway with the logo and being combined so they’d still only get this much. Papke: Yeah. Undestad: I think some of them that may want their logo. Aanenson: Bigger than. Undestad: And just have a little name on there. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Aanenson: Yeah. This is your opportunity to recommend whatever you think’s appropriate. Thomas: …the grocery store. Undestad: Like Lakewinds, yeah. Thomas: Because there’s a logo and then. Aanenson: They meet the 20%. Yeah. And this is your opportunity to put in whatever you think’s appropriate. Undestad: I kind of agree with Debbie you know. Bump it up a little bit on the logo side. Thomas: Because 20% of the sign, I mean Lakewinds is a good example of exactly that. Like the pretty design and then wording, right? I mean. Al-Jaff: Look at page 7 of your staff report. Aanenson: Sharmeen’s interpretations. Larson: Yeah, but all signs aren’t long and wide like that. Sometimes they’re square. Sometimes they’re. Laufenburger: Most of them have a better logo… Larson: …more into a rectangle than you’re 30% logo would fit better than stretching it out, you know what I mean? I don’t know. I personally like a logo but. Undestad: Aren’t we okay with that based on the restriction of the square foot areas of the sign and things too? I mean you guys have spent a lot of time talking about it but to come back at 20%. Papke: Denny, do you have anything you want to say? Laufenburger: Well there’s nothing that says it must be 30%. 30% is an upper limit. Aanenson: Correct. Larson: Right. Laufenburger: And Mark’s point is a good one is that we’re limiting the total size of the sign, is that correct? Aanenson: That’s correct. Al-Jaff: Correct. Regardless the size is. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Laufenburger: I can support 30%. Papke: I think in this case it’s aesthetic. You know, give ourselves a little bit of latitude. Larson: They can only be really cool logos though. If they’re crappy, forget it… Papke: So the Planning Commission recommends 30%. Aanenson: Okay. Thomas: Okay. Al-Jaff: The other thing that we are recommending is when you have language that where the letter is, are less than 6 inches tall, they do not have to be dimensional letters. And that is the panel that’s typically underneath. Sharmeen Al-Jaff and then the title would be. So Sharmeen Al-Jaff would be in dimensional letters, but the title of my job would be in non-dimensional letters if they were less than 6 inches tall and if they were no more than 20% of the total sign area. Papke: On this space you have 1(c) here, company logos shall not occupy more than 20% of the sign display area. That’s the one that goes to 30 then? Al-Jaff: Correct. I assume we’ll get to that in a second. For monuments and pylon signs. Currently the entire sign, all the letters on the sign would have to be dimensional letters. What we are recommending is that the name of the center or the main business would be in dimensional letters. However if, so Market Square is in dimensional letters but then if you have individual occupants, then they do not have to be in dimensional letters. Question here is currently we’re saying the company logo has to be no more than 20% of the sign display area. This is on monument and pylon signs. Would you like to see that at 30% as well? Papke: Sure, be consistent. Al-Jaff: Okay. We’re still on the signs and one of the things that we often encounter is the fact that if you have a building with a multi-tenant and entrances into the building do not face the street, signage. So your entrances are facing the parking lot rather than the street. You’re not allowed any signage on the parking side of the building, and perfect example of that would be the Chipotle and Buffalo Wild Wings building in downtown. And Buffalo Wild Wings ended up coming before the Planning Commission requesting a variance so they can have a sign above their entrance. It makes perfect sense to allow them and we are recommending that we amend the ordinance to allow such signs. Another thing that the ordinance currently prohibits is wall signs that adjoin a residential district. Unless they are, there are intervening public streets. Well there are times when we have another building that might separate signage. So the signs are facing out or the opposite direction of the residential area. We’re recommending that the ordinance be amended to allow such signs. Last but not least is the alteration of property lines in, associated with applications that have conditional uses, interim use permits and variances. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Lines are altered on properties governed by a conditional use, an interim use or a variance and as a result of these alterations the site might become in violation of the conditions of approval. We are recommending that we add language that would prevent that from happening, and to make it clear that that’s not permitted. We’re recommending that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amendments to Chapter 20 and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Aanenson: Just to clarify. Recommendations with your recommended change anywhere from 20% logo to 30%. I think that was in 3 places. Al-Jaff: And the may, the shall instead of the may. Papke: I have a question on the table on page 9. Al-Jaff: Yes. Papke: The last two rows the figures don’t quite jive. 5% of 4,500 square feet is actually 225 square feet. So you either have to change the 5% or you’ve got to change the 230, and that doesn’t jive. Al-Jaff: Okay. Papke: And the last row, the 3% and the 240 I don’t, you know. So your, at 4,500+ you can do 3% of whatever it is but in that case what is the 240 mean because especially if you’re at 4,500 square feet, 3% of that is only 135 square feet so how do I interpret that if my wall size is over 4,500 square feet? Do you follow me? Al-Jaff: Yes. Papke: So either you’ve got to get rid of the 200. Is our intent to say it is 3% if you’re at 4,500 or is our intent to say once you hit 4,500 you can have a 240 square foot sign and that’s it? Al-Jaff: That would be the maximum. Papke: So we’ll just ax out the 3%. Just get rid of the 3% there. Aanenson: Yeah. Probably the percentages on all of those. That was the rational basis is that if you had a huge, huge building you can’t just make a graphic across the whole thing, yeah. Papke: Yeah. Okay. Aanenson: But good point. Papke: Questions? Comments? Concerns? Issues? Reservations? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 17, 2008 Larson: Sure. This one I can do. Planning Commission, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code noting the couple of changes that we made regarding verbiage, saying shall instead of may. And regarding the logo percentage to 30% in three different areas, wherever it’s mentioned. Papke: Is there a second? Undestad: Second. Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code with amendments changing the words “may” to “shall” and that logos on signs shall be permitted up to 30%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3, 2008 as presented. Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:26 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 29