CC Minutes 10-13-08
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
9.Any additional development to Parcel A or Parcel B shall require additional stormwater
ponding. (This would include Phase III of Parcel A).
10.The 60 outdoor storage units shall not increase the hard surface coverage on the site.
11.The outdoor storage shall be removed from the site upon completion of Phase III of the mini-
storage facility.
12.Sign 2, the ground low profile sign along Old Highway 212, must be removed.
13.Sign 4, the directional sign at the corner of Old Highway 212 and Stoughton Avenue, must
be removed.
14.Sign 1, the entrance sign along Stoughton Avenue:
a.Shall meet the definition of a ground low profile sign in that it must be in contact with the
ground;
b.May not exceed 64 square feet of sign display area;
c.May not be greater than 8 feet in height;
d.A sign permit must be approved prior to alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be removed
prior to sign permit approval.
15.Sign 3, the pylon sign along Old Highway 212 - A sign permit must be approved prior to
alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be removed prior to sign permit approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER: CONSIDER 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.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This application is an amendment to a PUD. This is a
neighborhood shopping center district and this item was held, a public hearing was held before
nd
the Planning Commission on September 2. They did spend some time discussing motion signs
and how they’re interpreted and I’ll discuss that in a minute as we go forward. This sign does,
this property is located on the intersection of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. When the sign
package was put together, that back lot does abut residential. While there is a buffer there
because of the Bluff Creek overlay zoning district, the property in this corner up in here is part of
the Arboretum Village. So in looking at the sign package there it was intended to actually put a
sign for this property, instead of on the street frontages, to Highway 5 where it got better
visibility. So this is the sign we’re talking about. The PUD says monument signs only. Not to
exceed 10 feet, and then the Lot 2, which is this front, also has a sign, a monument sign for the
gas station. So in looking at that amendment, and the location of the signs, the applicant wanted
to do a pretty large scrolling, changeable copy sign. So in looking at reviewing that, we want to
10
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
be consistent with what we’ve allowed for other signs. So what this request is for a minor PUD
amendment on the electronic reader sign, which is a, we could put into the PUD amendment as,
or as a conditional use and other zoning districts. So what we’re recommending here is
amending the PUD to allow the electronic changeable copy, so that’s the actual request. So the
current sign would be what’s out there today, and the uses that are in those back businesses. So
there would still be some space but what the recommendation is, consistent with what allowed
for changeable copy, to put that on the top. There’s numerous iterations on this when it was
appeared before staff to get a much larger sign and didn’t want to go down that road. Certainly
we think that the changeable copy architecturally could be nicer than a lot of the read that might
be harder to get on the sign. Again some of the concern too was that the existing gas station
sign, the proliferation of some of the temporary signs out there, that we’re hoping too while
they’re different owners, the original developer trying to work through some of those issues. So
the applicant’s intent is to advertise more visibility for that back lot. Again we put that up front
on Highway 5 to get better visibility. In turn what we were looking at is to get rid of some of
that temporary signage on Lot 1. Again some of that’s related to the gas station and so any,
we’re hoping that the LED, by allowing some changeable copy on that, to accommodate some of
the gas station’s needs. Any questions so far on that?
Mayor Furlong: Is this sign on Lot 1?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: It’s on the same lot as the gas station?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yes. The gas station sign is actually in this area here.
Mayor Furlong: But it’s on Lot 2 I should say.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yeah. They’re both on the same lot. And again that was put
together with the PUD because it was felt like because the residential behind, and there isn’t
much visibility there. That really the traffic seeing that would probably read from Highway 5.
Making the turn to go into to support those businesses. And the way it’s set up, the gas station
and the car wash really does kind of screen that back area.
Mayor Furlong: So is the, in terms of the temporary signage for the gas station business, part of
the conditions here is to eliminate that.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: And use the electronic sign to promote temporary.
Kate Aanenson: That was what we communicated to the applicant. That we believe that would
be the purpose and the intent of amending that is that should help eliminate.
Mayor Furlong: And were they in agreement with that?
11
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
Kate Aanenson: They said they were.
Councilman Litsey: Can I just ask one quick. On LED on the sign, is that, the height of the
lettering really going to be that visible?
Kate Aanenson: Well you know there was discussion on that regarding the height of that and if
you look at what the size of this is compared to what you would have for example on the Legion
on Highway 5. That was really our first one on Highway 5 and there was some debate among
the council on that, whether or not that would be an issue. I think what came up and one of the
neighbors spoke on this issue too. We looked at the spacing from the intersection. That’s why
we located it at that. It’s further from the intersection so you don’t have the dual read of the
signal and the sign itself. So this is further from the intersection. But one of the neighbors did
speak about the concern about that and the Planning Commission did spend some time talking
about what’s scrolling. What’s changeable because our ordinance is a little bit ambiguous on
that. We do have most of the changeable copies that we have in the city, do roll and not with a
lot of frequency but they do change. The Walgreen’s sign. Even Chapel Hill. The high school
ones. They change with different events so we’re trying to regulate some of that and we’re going
to come back with more specifics but in the staff report itself we did address kind of some of
those issues. Engineering also looked at some issues regarding safety and some of that too. But
I think it was very difficult to say, if you look at what we put in the staff report, on page 2 of the
updated, after the Planning Commission. When we looked at the other ones. Are they scrolling?
Are they changing? Are they in motion? Trying to find some uniformity and language and what
that means. Is it color bursting? Is it monochromatic? So that’s kind of what we looked at.
Most of these signs are either yellow or amber or the red. It’s how they read, so they’re singular
color. So in the discussion we kind of reached a consensus that we looked at what Minnetonka
and Eden Prairie are doing about changeable copies. That is our interpretation that the current
ordinance prohibits flashing scrolling but errs on the side of caution so we’re kind of trying to
regulate that, that it doesn’t become a nuisance. Because the other one that does change a lot
also is the movie theater sign, which is red. That changes with some regularity. So we haven’t
had a lot of complaints or issues with that too, but that’s something that we’re monitoring, and
we’ll be looking at that on the code update too.
Councilman Litsey: I mean in reading through, it just seems to me that scrolling probably is
perhaps the most pragmatic in terms of people.
Kate Aanenson: Trying to read it, right.
Councilman Litsey: Read it and diverting their attention away than just.
Kate Aanenson: Changing.
Councilman Litsey: Changing isn’t you know, if it’s done at reasonable intervals isn’t probably
going to be that bad but if we, I don’t know. So they haven’t really decided what they’re going
to do for sure there?
12
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Right. And I think that’s something that we’ll be coming back with more
specifics on that. How they would adapt that and they’re aware that we’re looking at that too.
That issue.
Councilman Litsey: So by approving this though we’re not necessarily for certain what we’re
going to end up with.
Kate Aanenson: Well again, we have a lot of different iterations of that right now. We don’t
really have a lot of problems in the areas that we have that. Even on the Legion site, which is
probably on about equal volume or speed of traffic.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah I would say so.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that one does change. Advertising a steak fry or activities that they
have there too so.
Todd Gerhardt: And enforcement is difficult. Sometimes it’s scrolling. Sometimes it’s set and
you know, you’re out there and you’re trying to take pictures.
Councilman Litsey: It changes.
Todd Gerhardt: It changes.
Kate Aanenson: It changes, yeah you know.
Todd Gerhardt: Or we’re not there when it’s scrolling.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Even the Walgreen one too. We haven’t seen an increase in traffic
issues there so we are trying to monitor that and trying to get some more specific language to
bring some uniformity to it. Obviously this is kind of a new technology that a lot of cities are
struggling with too. It’s not the same as the reader billboards. So I mean you have to kind of
look at, that’s at one end of the spectrum and we’re at the other end, so we are looking at that and
try to come to consensus. But we felt that this provides an opportunity to create a message
without having a proliferation of some of this other stuff that they’re trying to create. We felt
that was a good thing.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Let’s see, so that was the, so the staff report was amended to talk about
the scrolling part, and then that, we’ll re-examine the city codes is what we’re also
recommending from that Planning Commission update. So then the motion then before you
would be to amend the shopping center PUD to allow the sign criteria, allowing for electronic
message center, and again the motion is on the front page of your staff report, and I’d be happy
to answer any other questions that you may have.
13
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilwoman
Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don’t know if it’s a question but a comment. Maybe an observation
and correct me because I’m probably just not reading it right in the staff report but I think it says
under the current ordinance many of the signs are in violation of city code. So does that mean
that everyone has to get a special permit to have these and go through that process now?
Kate Aanenson: I think when we adopted the LED, we didn’t go back and modify what we said
scrolling and that so when we adopted a new, allowing a new format, or new technology but
didn’t go back and look at our ordinance so they’re in conflict so we need to reconcile those so
the Planning Commission also pointed out, so we’ll be coming, bringing that back forward to
you because we’ve already permitted a lot of them. Our ordinance does allow electronic
message boards and I think the purpose of electronic message boards is that you can change the
message, as opposed to going out and moving the letters. So what does that mean? You can
only change it once a day? Once a week? And that’s where we missed changing that part of the
language so they’re in conflict with each other and we recognize that so we’ll be fixing that. But
you’re right. Right now they are in conflict.
Mayor Furlong: And until we get that, until we go through the Planning Commission to the
council and come to a resolution, we’re not going to be citing anybody for.
Kate Aanenson: No. No, because we’ve permitted them and I think the ones that we, the ones
that we’ve legitimately permitted are, we haven’t had any problems with.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, well I mean I’m sorry. I don’t mean to cause a whole big issue.
Kate Aanenson: No, the Planning Commission brought up the same thing and it’s something we
need to resolve.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah because, like I said you know, having to have every one of
these people pay $300 to.
Kate Aanenson: Right, no.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Get permission to use their sign correctly.
Kate Aanenson: And I think too once we do this, that would be a great group to invite in to
review the ordinance to see how it’s working for them or any issues that, because they’re using
it. To give us some guidance.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I can see this as kind of a wave of the future.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: More and more businesses are going to.
14
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Well we want to employ it. At the library site. We talked about that. The high
school’s going to use it so, you know we need to get up to speed on that. On what that means.
Mayor Furlong: And I think your comment that the whole reason to have an electronic sign is so
the message can change from time to time. That’s why you do it.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, instead of going out and moving the letters around.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Turning individual ones on and off.
Kate Aanenson: Like the gas signs used to do, yeah.
Councilwoman Ernst: A reverse strategic initiative.
Mayor Furlong: There you go. Any other questions on this for staff? If not is the applicant here
this evening? Do you see them here?
Kate Aanenson: No. Mr. Clark, no I do not.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: They left a message on their scrolling sign.
Mayor Furlong: Well I hope they don’t have it up yet. Okay. Since they’re not here, any
questions. Does anybody have any questions for the applicants that they wanted to ask? Okay.
Comments from council. Thoughts or comments. Makes sense for people to move forward.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I guess the thing that I would look forward to is, and I think Kate
mentioned most of it but I’d like to know the purpose of these signs from a business perspective.
Not an individual business but you know what are we trying to accomplish here? And then I
think from there as we discuss what the ordinance should be, to try to adopt something to again
help business. There are limits as Kate said. You’ve got a wide spectrum of you know what
you’re looking at for signs here. But this continues to come up and it’s just, yeah I’d like to see
us move towards something because people, as you say, they’re violating the ordinance, or
they’re interpreting it completely wrong or they’re just kind of saying well, we’re going to invest
all this money and stick it out there. What are you going to do about it? So yeah, I’d like to see
us adopt something that’s consistent but yet meets the needs of business and I think that’s one
thing that I’m afraid may be missing because I don’t hear a lot, I hear from residents. I
understand their concerns but what’s business saying about this? I think they need to come and
tell us what’s the purpose of these signs so that we can craft an ordinance that will you know
help us now and in the future. So that’s the only comment I would get and I don’t know if you
can get anybody to come forward and help or not but I would encourage that.
Mayor Furlong: I would think the Chamber of Commerce would be interested in participating in
that. I think that would be a good representation of our businesses here in Chanhassen.
15
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
Councilman McDonald: I would agree.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, would somebody like to make
a motion?
Councilwoman Ernst: I will make one.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we 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 pages 4 and 5 of the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second it.
Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion? If there’s no further
discussion we’ll proceed with the vote.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to 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.
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.
16
City Council Meeting - October 13, 2008
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 5 to 0.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. I’d just like to briefly talk a little bit
about construction management as it’s different, it’s basically a new type of contract. A new
type of procedure model that the City would like to implement for this new public works facility.
Basically the City has two main models that we are allowed to use. One is hiring an architect
and sending out the plans and specs and to do a prime contractor. One contractor. He would
give us a price back and have, obviously advertising for this. We pick the lowest bidder and
move on from there. There’s some inherent risk involved with doing that. Another option is
construction management services, and a lot of other cities, communities, private organizations
have gone to this model for several reasons that I’ll explain. But construction management
services, what is it? It’s basically a contract that, between the City and a construction
management service that basically the City would hire this firm to work with the architect and
put plans and specs together and go out for bid for construction services, but not just the one
prime contractor but all the sub-disciplines so basically instead of going and soliciting for one
bid for a project, the City would not solicit several contracts, or packages. Bid packages for a
particular project so. By doing this there’s several different advantages for doing this. Like I
17