Loading...
PC Minutes 9-2-08 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Angie Auseth, Planner I; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER: REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN LED MOTION SIGN ON THE PERMITTED SIGN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD (LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER). APPLICANT: SIGN SOURCE & NORTH COAST PARTNERS, LLP, PLANNING CASE 08-17. Public Present: Name Address th Bryan Monahan 7500 West 78 Street, Edina Jim Abrahamson 7660 Quattro Drive Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Undestad: The colors on the lighting. Is it all like it shows there, where it’s just changing text on that type of color or do they have the multi-color. Auseth: It will be a single color. Undestad: Okay. Papke: Sir, if you could hold off until we get to public comments. Jim Abrahamson: Oh, alright. Keefe: Is there motion on this sign or is it just static? Auseth: It will just be the copy that will change periodically. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Keefe: So it isn’t like a scroll or moving? Auseth: No. The ordinance prohibits that. Keefe: Oh, okay. Laufenburger: This sign is a, it’s a 10 foot sign. Auseth: Correct. Laufenburger: So it’s actually twice the size of the normal monument sign, is that correct? And this is in lieu of a monument sign on both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Auseth: Lot 2 has the gas station sign. Lot 1, I’ll go back to the layout here. On Lot 1 it was th viewed that you could have signage along West 78 Street as well as Century Boulevard. And instead they were combined into the single sign on Lot 2 to serve Lot 1. Laufenburger: So I’m looking at your, on my document I think it’s page, it must be page 3. I’m reading, it says Lot 2 will contain 1 monument sign. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. Auseth: Right, and that’s to serve Lot 2. The gas station. Laufenburger: And is that the sign that he’s pointed out as subject sign with a red star on it? Auseth: No. Number 1 is the 10 foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet. Laufenburger: Okay. And where’s the monument sign then? Auseth: The monument sign is just south of the curvature. The monument sign is, if you look just south of the drive aisle on Lot 2, at that corner of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. Laufenburger: Okay. So it’s closest to the intersection is what you’re saying. Auseth: Correct. Laufenburger: But that sign does exist right now. Auseth: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you. Thomas: I don’t have any questions. Dillon: So over the course of the last few months we went through all the new city codes and you know there was a lot of discussion about things, and there was one chapter that we talked 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 about that had signs. And I tried to look that up before I came to this. I couldn’t find it and it had like, but I thought I’d just ask the staff here. So what, how are signs like this treated in the codes and all of that that we’ve reviewed over the last 4 or 5 months. And is there anything with this proposal that is incongruent what we’re going, we just adopted. Or are in the process of adopting. Auseth: They are allowed via a conditional use permit but because this is a Planned Unit Development, they can be addressed through an amendment. So we’ve taken a lot of the criteria from the conditional use portion of the code and just made them work in this situation. Dillon: So it’s nothing that the guidelines would go against. It’s just kind of the way that we go about getting this approved. Auseth: Right. Dillon: Okay. That’s it. Papke: Okay. Just one question. The typical concern with these are traffic problems, distraction of drivers going by, etc. Has the city engineer, you know anybody from the traffic area looked at this? Any concerns with it? Given it’s placement, etc. Auseth: We have criteria that’s in the conditional use portion of the code that states that it can’t be any closer than 500 feet to an intersection. 125 feet of any residential district and we’ve made sure that we’ve met all of those criteria. Papke: Okay. So bottom line is, there’s no concerns from a traffic distraction perspective. Okay. The only other thing that keeps coming up as we’re, I don’t know where we’re at with the Halla’s sign these days. I know that’s been an ongoing issue and the only, has the attorney looked at this? Is there any concern that this might impact what’s going on there? It’s probably more of an issue for the City Council than it is for the Planning Commission but I have to ask. Any comment? Generous: It has, this report has been submitted to the City Attorney and no comment or issue on that. There is a distinction between this site and Mr. Halla’s site. Papke: Oh yeah, big difference. Generous: So, and as far as the status on that, I believe they’re appealing. Papke: Alright. Any other questions for staff? Are you the applicant sir? Jim Abrahamson: I am. Papke: Okay. If you’d state your name and address for the record please. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Jim Abrahamson: Jim Abrahamson with Sign Source, 7660 Quattro Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. On behalf of Ron Clark, Bryan Monahan and North Coast Partners in Edina, we’d like to request the changes you know that were brought up here to allow for this type of a sign in order to you know advertise. Do the different types of advertising that you know would eliminate a lot of the temporary signage that goes on. Banners, sales, stuff like that. The intent here is primarily for like I say, Lot 1, Block 1 but there is interest from the others in the vicinity there also to buy time on the message center. It’s my understanding also that, I did the conditional use permit for the school here in town and the signs are, you are able to scroll the sign. Just not flash so that answers somebody’s question over here. Papke: Anything else? Jim Abrahamson: No. Papke: Anybody have any questions? Dillon: So North Coast will own the sign? Jim Abrahamson: Yes. Dillon: And North Coast is, owns the property there? Jim Abrahamson: Yes. Dillon: And are all of the stores and everyone tenants of North Coast then? Jim Abrahamson: In Lot 1, Block 1. Dillon: Lot 1, Block 1. Okay. So the gas station is not and the Jimmy John’s and the other ones are not. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah. Dillon: Okay. Jim Abrahamson: But they’ve all, we’ve been in meetings on this. We all tried to propose a new monument sign which was basically kind of out of the question because of the size so this was the second proposal. Dillon: And not that it will, just out of curiosity. So how do you, so you can sell time to other merchants to put their stuff on the sign? And will it only be for the merchants at the shopping center here or would you do other things too? Jim Abrahamson: Well you know it’s always, you know at North Coast’s discretion you know. There could be anything from a city event that’s going on to you know, stuff in the, but it’s primarily for the tenants in the buildings there. They will apply the sign and own it. Obviously 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 they work with some of the others and have shown a lot of interest in you know getting their message out there at the busy times but I’m sure if the city had some kind of events going on, you know there would be opportunity to advertise that as well. Dillon: That’s the only question I have. Thomas: I’m okay. Laufenburger: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Abrahamson. While I appreciate your comments about the school, I’m quoting from the information that is provided to us from the staff and I’m reading, it says flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. So if it’s your assumption that that is an availability for the sign, according to our information it’s not. You understand my comment Mr. Abrahamson? Jim Abrahamson: I understand your comment. Dillon: Where’s that? Laufenburger: Page 5 of 5. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah, I see it right here. Now I guess my question would be whether or not. Laufenburger: Did I make a mistake there? Auseth: No. Laufenburger: Okay. Jim Abrahamson: My question would be whether or not that is something new because when we’ve requested this originally, the only thing that we couldn’t do was the flashing. Laufenburger: Well that may be between you and the applicant addressing staff but the decision that we make tonight will be based on the information provided to us by the staff. Is that true Mr. Chairman? Papke: That’s correct. Unless we amend it. Laufenburger: Okay, those are the only questions I have. Keefe: No questions. Undestad: Is that something you needed to work on with them? Are you planning on a scrolling sign? Jim Abrahamson: Well these types of signs, that’s how they operate is they scroll. When you read left to right. It scrolls across in front of you. The sign is designed to provide for 4 lines or 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 larger lines, say 2 lines of 12 inch and when you go with a bigger letter obviously you can get only a certain amount of characters on there so the unit is designed to scroll, just like the school sign does. And I know that’s a separate sign but I guess my question would be, I was, I wasn’t aware of the scrolling not being. Undestad: The way this looks to us now is you’ve put up a sign and that’s what we read. When you’re done with that, that disappears. You put up another sign. That’s what we read. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah. And that’s definitely one of the capabilities is just when you go to a larger letter, to be able to view it from a farther distance than generally it does scroll. Laufenburger: I think you can appreciate the potential safety issues that would be present by a sign, albeit in your best intent, but a message that scrolls over a sequence of maybe 20 seconds. You know somebody who has their attention diverted off the road for a period of 20 seconds, looking at your very attractive and very assuming sign. That may not be in the best interest of the public safety. Jim Abrahamson: Oh, I understand that. Thomas: Don’t most signs scroll? I mean Walgreen’s sign scrolls. The Chanhassen, that little th elementary school right there on West 78 scrolls. The high school sign’s going to scroll. I mean am I wrong that a lot of the signs do do that? Jim Abrahamson: And I believe that’s the way it was, I guess I was out of town until I received this saying that you’re not allowed to scroll. Thomas: Yeah. I guess that’s my question with it as well. Papke: I think your question is a good one Denny about the safety issue. It’s just, I don’t pretend to know the signs here. I don’t know that a flashing message is going to be even more or less distracting than a scrolling one. I don’t know. Keefe: I guess the traffic guys ought to be able to help us out with that. Laufenburger: I think the question I’m raising really maybe is for a question for staff. Have we, as a Planning Commission been presented with the right material to make the right decision that gives a guidance to people who want to put electronic signs in the city of Chanhassen? And if our, if the guidance that we’re saying is flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on an electronic reader board shall be prohibited, maybe that’s too stringent. So I’m not sure what the resolution here is but we’re being asked tonight to make a decision on something that is certainly inconsistent with Mr. Abrahamson’s understanding of how these signs operate, though I’m sure they could be put in stop mode, couldn’t they? Jim Abrahamson: They definitely can be put into that. I just wanted to address the issue because I had a concern as it was brought up. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Thomas: Yeah, me too. I mean. Keefe: Well I assume they can proceed under this understanding and for this particular PUD. But you’d be limited to the way that it is. …maybe it should be tabled for you know if he wants to get it amended, he needs to go back and reconsider it or we approve it kind of as is. Or potentially we could amend. Papke: We could amend. Keefe: I don’t know, have we got enough now? Papke: Or we could ask the city engineer to take a look at it with the planning staff. Jim Abrahamson: I don’t want to ask for anything more than others are being allowed. Keefe: That’s fair. Papke: Any other questions for the applicant? How strongly do the Lot 1, Block 1 tenants feel about this? You know I have some personal history here. Just, no conflict of interest anymore but my wife used to manage one of the businesses, the Home Appetit business that was before mealtime there. They used to bring in trailer signs just because they had such a lack of visibility back there. Is there still a strong feeling with the liquor store and so on that they really need something? Jim Abrahamson: Yeah, that’s really what brought it to forefront. Dan Herbst with Pemtom Land Company is kind of, you know him and Ron Clark own the liquor store and Ron Clark and the North Coast Partners own the mall there and the visibility is just back far enough where they want to, you know they wanted to look at some issues and that’s where we started it. That’s why we’re here. But Bryan can comment on how the tenants feel I guess. th Bryan Monahan: Bryan Monahan, 7500 West 78 Street. I’m with North Coast Partners. I’m actually the property manager. One of the things that we did find with the existing sign, if you notice on page 4 of 5, the picture on the left hand side showing the existing sign is actually in the snow. Oddly enough as you’re driving on Highway 5, either east or west, the sign kind of disappears into the mound. One of the reasons for the LED, as Dan Herbst from the liquor store kind of brought to our attention was, it would really attract some attention to the center. Being the property manager, we’ve also recognized that for some time now. We’ve had some vacancies that in all of our showings of the spaces there, one of the things that they’ve brought up is that they don’t really see the visibility from the highway. That there isn’t good enough visibility for the stores to locate in that location. One of the reasons for the sign, for our own use would be to advertise leasing space as well, which would fill up the center as well. And then when we did talk to, I did talk to some of the tenants of the building, the existing tenants. Fantastic Sams for instance is one of them. They’re constantly advertising hair deals or whatever. They are very, very interested. There’s another tenant that is a karate studio. He’s very interested in advertising his specials for the year. There’s very, very great interest for this type of a sign. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Papke: Okay. Keefe: How important is the scrolling action? Bryan Monahan: One of the things that I’ve found in doing some research on these signs. One of the things I’ve found, I live in Elk River and there’s a sign on my way home. Scrolling, number one allows you to have the bigger letters, as Jim had pointed out. You can see it from a longer distance. If you’re reading, which obviously gets your attention a lot sooner to the location. The other thing is is you can fit a lot more in, into 2 seconds frankly with a scrolling sign or 3 seconds with a scrolling sign than you could in for instance 4 lines of text as shown on the proposed monument sign display. And frankly if I may interject, I would think that the smaller text would be more of a distraction because you’d be you know reading things on the sign while coming up to the stop sign or wherever rather than just kind of seeing it scroll in front of you. Papke: Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, if there’s anyone from the public that would like to make a comment on this issue, would you please step to the podium. Lynne Etling: Yeah, my name is Lynne Etling and I live at, on Century Boulevard and first of all I’d like to congratulate you because I think you’ve really done due diligence in your background on this, but I do have a few questions because obviously living there we already have the light from the fitness center that pretty much lights the whole sky in the area, which has really ruined our residential neighborhood. But a few things I don’t understand. One thing I want to make sure on your web page. You said that you had two pictures of it. One in red letters and one in the clear, and I believe Mark had mentioned that but I want to make sure it’s in clear and not red lettering. Jim Abrahamson: It’s actually amber. Lynne Etling: Amber, okay. And a few things that are confusing to me are, you know is this is a special consideration, a one time deal where you’re going to let this kind of sign be in that neighborhood or is this to break the way for other businesses in that neighborhood to have a 10 foot LED? Generous: 10 foot is specific to this site. Other properties could come in for a conditional use permit to put up their own LED signs in the commercial district so across in the south side of Highway 5 there. The properties north of this, Lot 1 is prohibited from having a monument sign. That’s why this one is located on Highway 5. Lynne Etling: Because they’re within 500 feet, right? Generous: No, well the. Lynne Etling: Of the residents. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Generous: They meet the separation requirements. It’s just as part of the planned development, it is said that they wouldn’t have any monument signage on that north lot. Jim Abrahamson: Yeah, we actually passed on the entrance to that property passed on by the monument… Lynne Etling: Right. One of my issues though is that the whole corner lot there is not hidden from our building so we can sit on the patios and see everything that goes on, you know the extra light, whatever at night and from what I’m reading in this, this means that this LED light is going to be up 24 hours. Jim Abrahamson: No, I believe it says 6:00 in the morning to 10:00. Lynne Etling: Okay. So it is going to be. Pardon me while I make a note. You know I’m just one resident here so I know that I really don’t have a voice for the whole community but I just wanted to come and let you know that it is a concern of mine. Obviously we need the business to succeed in that area as well so I know we need to make it work. My preference though would be not to have a scrolling sign and not to have the red. The amber would be preferable. But the main concern to me is, if you live in that neighborhood, not only do you have the light that goes on at night, but the traffic congestion in that area during rush hour is the main thing. I’m worry th that it will cause more accidents. I mean for me, I go down 78 because I don’t want to deal with someone rear ending me because they’re looking at something or texting or whatever. So that’s a big concern. And the other thing I just, you know for the other ones in the neighborhood, that’s a standard 5 foot monument sign as it is right now. That’s something that applies to all of them. And if they wanted to get a 10 foot then they would have to go for a special permit. Generous: No. In this development it was permitted. Lynne Etling: I mean the whole corner. The whole corner. Generous: Yes, they would have to come in especially for that. Lynne Etling: Okay. And I do believe on the web site too your paperwork stated that it would be scrolling. That to me wasn’t something new but the other thing too, the other companies in the area could also advertise on it. Is that standard? I just wondered. Generous: Within the center. Lynne Etling: Yeah, within the center. Okay. Well that would be my two big things. The lights in the neighborhood and the traffic. That’s the two things that really bother me. Papke: Thank you very much for your comments. We appreciate it. Lynne Etling: Yeah, thank you for listening. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Papke: Okay. I think that’s it for members of the public in the room so I’ll call the public hearing closed and bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Anyone? Comments. Concerns. Undestad: No, I just think that the way it’s written in here we just need to figure out on the scrolling issue here. It sounds like scrolling is what they need for the larger letters but the way we have it here is not scrolling so I guess we need to figure how we want to. Papke: So would you support a condition that says you know city staff to work within themselves to satisfy themselves that scrolling is the safe thing to do? Keefe: Yeah. I think that’s a good way to do it. Yeah. Laufenburger: I would support, if we could figure out the scrolling and my intent on the scrolling was just to make sure that we are acting in accordance with the guidelines that are provided by the city so. And if we need to go outside of those, let’s make sure that we know we’re going outside of those. Just one other comment too. I’m trying to think how the lighting of this sign, I believe this sign is not directed towards any residential housing. Yeah, I’m looking at it here and I think the signage faces kind of in the street. Easterly direction so I guess I’m comfortable that that lighting would not interfere with housing. Thomas: I too would like to figure out the scrolling issue just because I’d be in support of definitely looking at his, my concern is, if this is what our, what it says for our code is, I assume we’re not all in the same path with everybody that has these kind of signs and I just want to make sure (a), we have the right information for when anybody comes forth will get the same treatment. Papke: Yep. Thomas: Then there’s no surprises. Papke: Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I’d agree with all that but you know so do we need to take it one, or not we but someone, like the staff or someone, take it one step further and go back and maybe amend the code because flashing and blinking, that’s different than scrolling and animation. That’s different than scrolling and maybe you know there’s, I think there was good points made on the safety for both sides, scrolling and small letters. I mean you know it all, so maybe that is something. Papke: If you could keep down the conversation while the commission’s talking. Dillon: So I think we seem to be on the same page here in terms of having the staff work out something with the applicant on this one but there might be another issue in terms of taking a look at the original guidelines. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 Thomas: I’d agree. Papke: Yeah, just to put a little more color on what Kevin was saying. This is at least the third LED sign I remember you know having come to the Planning Commission and it just seems like maybe the technology and the marketing is moving ahead of our ability to, of the way we have things set up to cope with it. I don’t think we’re, you know we shouldn’t be seeing this much stuff with these signs so I guess I’d really appreciate it if city staff could take a look at this and see if we can’t get some real clarity on this and make sure that we are treating everybody consistently. That we’re not setting undue precedence every time we do one of these, because as we all know it’s the precedence setting that always comes back to bite us because there’ll be another person in here looking for another 10 foot sign in another couple months and so if we could accomplish that as well as get this specific case done tonight, I think that would be a good goal to set so. With that I’ll entertain a motion. Keefe: I’ll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign as specified on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Papke: Would you like to add any conditions about the scrolling? Keefe: Yeah, with the condition that the applicant work with staff to address the issue of scrolling. Whether it should be allowed or not. Papke: Is there a second? Dillon: Second. Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (PUD 03-06), Planning Case #08-17, amending the design standards Section e. Signage Criteria to allow an electronic message center on an existing monument sign as follows: Monument Sign 1.Lot 1 shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a 10-foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. a.An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square-foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i.No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 2, 2008 ii.Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii.Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv.The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. v.There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right- of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffused and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi.Electronic and non-electronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii.Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii.Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. 2.Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3.All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from the property lines. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Papke: Okay. Item number 2. Lynne Etling: Can I ask one more question before I leave? Papke: Ah yes. Lynne Etling: Is there a precedence about the scrolling versus the speed of the cars going by? You know what is safer and what is not. That might be something that you could look into to. Because like Walgreen’s you’re going 25 miles an hour versus you know let’s face it, 60 miles an hour. Papke: Yeah, that’s a good point. Thank you for bringing that up. 12