4 Approval of Minutes.CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 6, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Kevin Joyce and
LuAnn Sidney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton and Allyson Brooks
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director and Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN #96-4 FOR HI-WAY 5 CENTER FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A WALL SIGN, LOCATED AT 463 WEST 79Ta STREET, GIANT
PANDA RESTAURANT
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
~Peterson: Questions of staff.
BlaCkoWiak: Mr. Chair, my question is, there are some, there's a sign or actually a painting,
window painted. What's the City's policy on having windows painted...there now. I mean
.could that be left or what's the city's position on that?
Kirchoff: Okay, the sign ordinance permits window signage that is, it can go up to 50% of the
window area. So they can have a sign on the window.
Blackowiak: Okay, so it could be painted and left as it is right now? That's kind of what I'm
curious about because it is kind of painted in the window fight now.
Kirchoff: That may be that clinging sign. Those cling signs.
Zong-ming Cheng: Could I...?
Blackowiak: So they can be up to 50%?
Kirchoff: Yes, they can have window signage and they don't require, we don't require a permit
for that.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Joyce: Kate, when we reviewed the site plan for this thing, what consideration was given for the
south elevation? To be left barren like that?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Aanenson: Actually we intended to put more landscaping along that back side. If you recall, we
thought that would be a patio area and more intensively landscape that in the back side of the gas
station so...
Joyce.' But I'm saying on the top, where we're putting it, where they're considering it or where
they're requesting or asking rather for the sign. I'm relating it back to the Gold Medal where on
the north side, the south side it just seems barren and that's how we felt that that we were going
to leave it barren like that.
Aanenson: Yes.
Kirchoff: Yes.
Peterson: Why don't we just wait. We'll do a presentation by you and then we'll have questions
for you too.
Zong-ming Cheng: Thank you very much.
Peterson: Other questioxts of staff?.
state your name and address please.
With that, would the applicant like to come forward and
Zong-ming Cheng: I'd like to give you this cam because I don't come here very often and I come
across here four hours from Fargo...present this case to you... I'd like to thank you very much
the opportunity. My name is Zong-ming Cheng and however before I present this I'd like to tell
you a little bit about ourselves so that you know our intentions and stuff. We come here, I come
to the United States about 13 years ago. I got n-fy masters and Ph.D. degrees from Cornell
University in New York and I was offered a job at North Dakota State University to teach and do
research there. And when we come to Fargo we found there was no good Chinese restaurant
there so we inspired, because the people in North Dakota, in Fargo offered us opportunities so we
want to offer some back to the community. And so we established this restaurant in Fargo and
we set new standards right now in Fargo and the business, the Chinese restaurant has
dramatically increased the standard of service and the food and quality for the people in Fargo.
And after that we want to expand opportunity and we invested this Twin City areas and we foUnd
it unbelievable information that none of the restaurants here is even close to ours in Fargo. And
so we wanted t6 expand the business to this area and we searched quite a bit and we decided to
come to Chanhassen and we find this a very good neighborhood. It's very dynamic and so we,
you know we talked to the Chamber of Commerce and they said this is a city planning
committee...very nice. Very pro business with our kind of attitude and so we decide to find a
space in this city and that's the location we founded. And so when we get into the building we
find the previous tenant already had a two sets of signs made there. We took it for granted that
there would be two sets of signs allowed in the wall and the one that face to the west and the one
face to the south. If that's, and then we checked our realtor and he said that blueprint have
already been approved by the city and so, but because our realtor is out of town so we could not
get the official letter. If we check your archives we might be able to find that but we don't have
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
the conclusive information right now regarding the approval of two wall signage for the previous
tenant. But after we met.., and I studied your signage criteria and also the letter we got from the
committee and reviewed a studied by the staff of this committee and I have a few, if I call that
discussion or argument or rebuttal to make. First of all, if I look at these signage criteria and the
number one is (a) is all business should share one monument sign. My understanding is that
that's a pylon sign, if my understanding is correct. And the second one, wall signage are
permitted on no more than two street frontage. Based on this standard or this criteria, we are
actually entitled to have two signs on the two sides of the building or the walls. And so we are
entitled, this fight to have this, have the two signs on the two side of the wall. And also the
landlord has already have the signage in two sides. One on the western side and one in the north
side. So we should be able to, and we are entitled to have two wall signs on no more than two
frontages and we are asking for that according t° the signage criteria set up by this committee by
the city of Chanhassen. When I studied this document sent by this committee, studied by the
staff and one issue was raised regarding the fairness of the signage for other tenants in this, on
this plaza and I would argue that, I would discuss this issue in the three areas. First of all the
landlord had three signs including one pylOn sign and he had two wall signs on the two frontages
so it isn't fair to us to have signage on two side of the building. So we are asking the fairness of
this committee to permit us to put signs on the two sides. And also, according to the staff study,
this committee speculates that other tenants may request the same variance request and I feel
strongly that according to the city's signage criteria, we have that fight, we are entitled that and
actually those tenants are also entitled for that fight and if they choose to request. So in terms of
fairness and we should be treated fairly and equally as the landlord was treated in the past. And
also this committee worried about that this allowance or this permit must set the precedent for
the future for other tenants in the plaza to request two signs. And I don't think that's a valid
reason to reject our request because according to the city criteria the two, the wall signs are
allowed in the two streets and they are entitled our fight and I don't think that this committee or
the staff reviews should worry that setting that precedent and this committee is paid and
employees are paid by the business by the city's involved, these city and is working for the
business and pro business and help the business so I don't think the worrying about setting the
precedent for others is a valid reason for the future. And if the committee worries about that, and
I don't think we should be in business to review any of those. And another reason argued by this
staff review is whether we causing the hardship and they asked us to demonstrate the hardship we
may cause if we don't put the signage there. I would argue other way around. If we have to
demonstrate the hardship that it was causing the business difficulty and that would be certainly,
would be too late for us and we come here wanting to establish a successful business. We're not
coming here to demonstrate hardship and we don't want us to fail. We don't want we set a
precedent as a failing business in this community. Actually the cOffee shop next to ours have
already changed ownership twice and one of the reasons we called, talked to them was that they
don't have a signage, good signage and to show the people. And also according to this review on
the page number 4, number d, the staff believes that this hardship was created by the applicant.
And I feel that it's sort of unfair for us. We request this signage for the city and because it's
entitled for this right and said the applicant created this hardship by proposing to install a wall
sign that does not meet the requirements of the site plan review. And we are entitled this right
and if we are considered, we are creating a hardship for this committee and I would have a little
bit difficulty to accept that. Just like my students in the university complain that a teachers are
3
Planning Commission Meeting ~ January 6, 1999
not doing good job and we cannot complain the students causing our hardship to us as a faculty
so I request that we should be allowed for this information. So as a conclusion and we come here
and we found this committee and we found this city was very nice and pro business and
according to the city criteria for signage and we are entitled this right and we are just asking the
fair treatment to give us permit for this signage. And we will design and put the signs according
to the other criteria set by the signage criteria. And thank you very much for allowing me to
make this case and I hope you will give us favorable consideration. Thank you.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Fellow commissioners. Ladd you came in late so you get
to go first.
Conrad: That's the penalty. That's fair, isn't it? Well I welcome you. I hope you do come
here.
Zong-ming Cheng: Thank you.
Conrad: I think our ordinance is clear and I think the building owner had the right to do what he
wanted in terms of selecting two elevations, two sides to put signage on. I think if I were you I'd
be here. I think you've got great highway visibility and it's a little bit ora shame not to have
that. There is, yet the ordinance is there. I think the staff report is proper. I would have a hard
time going against the staff report. Although I can empathize a great deal with wanting to put a
restaurant in front of 20,000 people every day° I would do exactly the same as the applicant is
requesting. I think, and I can't speak for anybody else. I think the southerly elevation, or the
northerly elevation is rather insignificant for street, for building signagel I think your issue is
really with the building owner and you know I think if Gold Medal Sports wants to give up their
sign, I think they can talk to us about putting it on the south side of the building. May 'upset
some folks. It wouldn't upset me but the ordinance says two sides and I think we're fairly clear
in that so nothing else Craig.
Peterson: Alison?
Blackowiak: Yeah I agree pretty much with what Ladd has said. It does appear that the owner
knowingly agreed to give up signage along the southern elevation in exchange for the west
elevation signage so he has frontage on two sides. North and west. I must tell you though my
husband saw those letters that said Chinese Buffet and he's rather excited about it so I think that
the window letters are really good and if there's no reason that you can't keep them, I would
strongly suggest you leave that in your window.
Zong-ming Cheng: Well we... so the sign in the window is not very professional...signage on
the wall was not causing any problems...customer sits by the window, the windows are blocked.
I personally don't feel it's very nice to...
Blackowiak: No, I certainly understand what you're saying but I mean in terms of visibility, he
noticed it right away and I think that's really what you're looking for right now is get the people
knowing where you're going to be.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Zong-ming Cheng: ...why we should...
Blackowiak: Well what I'm saying is that if it does not work out for the southern elevation, that
the windows are an opportunity for you to have exposure on the southern side and that's, that
alone with the pylon I think is what you were looking for.
Zong-ming Cheng: I would prefer'to have letters on the wall and...
Blackowiak: Yeah I understand. I do think maybe you need to speak to the owner. I don't know
that there's going to be anything there but.
Zong-ming Cheng: The owner has no objection at all for the signage.
Blackowiak: Well if he wants to give up the north side then you know I think that that's, because
the building only can have two sides. That's what the ordinance reads so.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...according to the sign Ordinance...
Peterson: I think let's get through with the rest of the comments. We may have more questions
for you.
Zong-ming Cheng: Thank you.
Peterson: Kevin.
Joyce: I'm afraid you made my, at this point your argument was kind of persuasive in the fact
that in all fairness everyone should have a street sign.., that I've got a problem with is you
having that but then the coffee shop asking for it. Blimpie's and everything else and I
guess...obligated to allow them to do that. And you do have a sign on the monument sign. You
know that was the agreement, as I read it, the agreement with the owner...street front sign. The
monument sign and a west facing sign. In actuality you do have a sign there on the monument
sign. Now I'm going to say this. I think Ladd brought up a real good point. I would have
absolutely no problem whatsoever if they took that Gold Meadow sign down and put a sign up on
the other side. I have no problem with that whatsoever because I think that's a point that you, I
think that's something that you should work something out with... I will say Kate though, I don't
like that blank wall. I guess maybe food for thought the next time we have something. That was
a weird, I understand it was kind ora strange building to put there but after looking at that it's
like ah man. I mean I can see a tenant, all those tenants having a problem with it. It doesn't look
like it's being occupied at all. So I sure wish the owner would make a, you'd work with the
owner and pull the Gold Medal thing off the north side and come back to us and see if we can't
work something out. But I can't See us setting a precedent where we allow you to put a sign in
and the coffee shop saying wait a second. We want to put a sign up there because they're going
to want the same exposure you have and you can answer after but that's my feeling...at this time.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Peterson: LuAnn.
Sidney: Yeah, I agree with other Commissioners. I understand the applicant's desire for a sign
on the south exposure. However the site plan and the sign plan has been approved for just two
elevations so I agree with comments that have been made on that.
Peterson: My comments are also not dissimilar. I think that a little bit additional background for
you. I think our Highway 5 corridor, which is on both north and south side of Highway 5. We
put a great deal of time and effort into the ordinances surrounding that, both the sign ordinances
and building styles and the whole concept behind that corridor so we have pretty consistently,
and I can't even remember a variance we've made to the sign ordinance in that corridor. So in
trying to recommend something that we have consistently turned down, because we have put a
great deal of time and effort into the ordinance. And I appreciate the fact that you may not agree
with that and there is a certain rationale that would support that and Ican see that. However,
we're obligated to align ourselves with what the ordinances are and unless there's a compelling
reason to change that, more information and/or pre-conditions that have changed, but none of
that is really being presented tonight. So I think that although I can appreciate the frustration,
we're obligated to follow what the ordinances are and that means that you have two fronts and
right now they're on the north elevation and the west for the building so it really does go back to
working with the landlord and convincing them to change the sign.
Zong-ming Cheng: First of all, according to your sign criteria that you are allowed two wall
signs on two frontages. And a pylon sign is a monument sign. Not the wall sign. So we are
entitled to...
Peterson: No. Let me clarify that° It really is not, it's not the tenant. It's the building owner that
when they presented it to us, they had the option of where to put the sign and they chose two
elevations for all of the tenants and that was the west elevation and north elevation, right Kate?
Zong-ming Cheng: And we pay much higher rent than the others...because we have the
opportunity to put the sign on the south side. That's the reason why we requested this location.
We pay the higher rent...so we already pay a much higher rent...
Peterson: Kate.
Aanenson: IfI could just clarify a couple things. Mr. Roos, the owner or the lessee of the
building did contact us. He made a decision. We're not privy to the discussions that went on
between this applicant and Mr. Roos but obviously there's, it appears there's some
miscommunication of what was permitted and what wasn't. Told Mr. Roos that we're going
with what was approved with that building. The applicant certainly has a right to appeal that
interpretation or decision, in which he's doing tonight, but he understands that we are going with
what was original approved package so whatever agreement they've worked out, or whatever was
told to him, we can't respond to that. But there was a sign package approved and he made that
clear to the tenants.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Zong-ming Cheng: When we...
Aanenson: How that was communicated to you, I mean that was a decision that was made by
Mr. Roos.
Peterson: That goes back to my other comment. It really is that the landlord made a decision
prior to you, a year and a half ago when the building was being built, that he had two sides. It'd
be the north side and the west side. And if he shared something different with you, that's really
the issue between you and the landlord.
Zong-ming Cheng: The signage on the north side...ifhe has two signs, one on the north side and
one of the west side, and we are...
Peterson: No, the ordinance is written as such that the building has signage on two sides. Not an
individual tenant but the building itself.
Zong-ming Cheng: But according to the sign criteria...
Peterson: ...policy, on numerous occasions these variances is that the building that has signage
capability on two sides. It's unfortunate that that was interpreted like that or presented like that
to you, but again I would offer that the real, the need is to go back to the landlord and discuss that
with them. Because we have to follow what the ordinance says.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...back to the landlord. That will create a lot of hardship...
Peterson: Two questions I'll respond to. I think that what you've heard tonight is one of the
primary concerns we have is setting precedent. We've already turned down numerous people for
this variance, having more than two sides of the building with signage. So that is, we're
obligated to at least respond to adhere to that. Our past decision so again we haven't heard
tonight a compelling reason to go away from the current sign ordinance so again I can appreciate
your position but we don't want you to go to court with the landlord. I guess what we're going
back to is offering that. Go back and discuss it with him and we'll certainly try to entertain,
resolving the issues. If you come back to us with another...if we can eliminate just the north and
west side.
Zong-ming Chet~g: ...
Peterson: Again it goes back to the ordinance specifically as this was approved by us and City
Council. It was the pylon sign and two sides of the building.
Zong-ming Cheng: How could the landlord has his own sign on one side, on the west side...
Peterson: The landlord made that decision when he began leasing out the building is that the
tenants would only have one side of the building to put their signs on. They knew that and they
signed up for that and agreed to that so. Yes Kate.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Aanenson: I just want to clarify too, whatever decision you made here, it still goes on to the City
Council.
Peterson: It is important. Not that I want you to drive back again but we are an advisory council
to City Council and they make the ultimate decisiOn based Upon our recommendation and
obviously their thoughts so that is your next step is when it goes to the council on the 25th of
January to make your thoughts there also.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...to allow to have the wall signs on two different...
Peterson: I think you've heard that where we differ from that perspective is how the policy is
written. We believe it's the building that is the dominant criteria for the ordinance so. We don't
want you to come back. We'd love to have you back in town again but.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, could I say something? No. What you're asking us to do, to validate
our signage ordinance. Does that make sense? It doesn't make sense. I don't want a response.
It doesn't make sense. It does not make sense. And we review signage all the time so we're
pretty solid in what we're looking at. I do signage for a living. I understand what our ordinance
reads and I don't think you have a very good case. If you come back you have to get the building
owner to do something. It's not us. It's the building owner. It's between you and the owner.
It's not a government deal. Our ordinance is pretty clear. We're interpreting the ordinance and
right now we're probably not going to change the ordinance. You could come back and have us
change the ordinance, but before you respond, we spent a lot of time looking at our ordinance
recently. It's not outdated so I'm trying to give you a few comments. It's not real solid for what
you're asking for. We all appreciate what you want to do. It's real clear that ifI were the
building owner and I wanted you in town, in my building and I would think because it's been
vacant for a long time, he'd try to change the signage on that building. I would think he would
try to do that. It's not taking down your name offthe pylon sign. That doesn't count. It just
doesn't count. The ordinance has been tested and I think that would be a waste of your time.
Excuse me Mr. Chairman but I, you know, I just wanted to give him. I think you have some
ways to solve your problem but it's not with city government right now.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...Could I make a last comment before you make your recommendation? I
thought...how we were misled...deal with the City Council...is that correct Mr. Chairman?
Peterson: Essentially that's what, the landlord had a decision whether or not they wanted to
place their sign on one of the two sides of the building. They made that decision when they
moved into the building and began leasing it out.
Zong-ming Cheng: So could you give me...according to your ordinance...how should we talk to
the landlord regarding this. That your committee can't...amendment.
8
Planning Commission Meeting -'January 6, 1999
Peterson: I think if you call staff tomorrow or they can walk you through that more succinctly
than we can tonight.
Zong-ming Cheng: So the...committee before we can.
Peterson: No, the landlord followed our sign ordinance and said that they can have signage on
two sides. The landlord in this case took one of those two sides for their own business.
Zong-ming Cheng: Now if the landlord took away his sign on the north side...
Peterson: Correct.
Joyce: It's not guaranteed.
Peterson: Yeah, it's not guaranteed but that would go a long way in providing a compelling
reason for us to make a variance, yes.
Zong-ming Cheng: Can I make a last comment before I go back to Fargo?
Peterson: This is your fourth last comment now.
Zong-ming Cheng: And when the ordinance...ifwe are not able to put the sign on the wall, we
are...
Peterson: Correct. 50% of the glass.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...thank you very much.
Peterson: With that, may I have a motion and a second please.
Joyce: I'll move that the Planning Commission denies the amendment to SPR #96-4 for the
construction of a 40 square foot illuminated wall sign and a 4.7 square foot logo based upon the
findings presented in the staff report and condition number 1.
Conrad: Second.
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to deny the
amendment to SPR #96-4 for the construction of a 40 square foot illuminated wall sign and
a 4.7 square foot logo based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the
following:
1. The applicant has visibility on TH 5 with the existing pylon sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Peterson: You can call staff tomorrow, Kate?
Aanenson: Yes.
Peterson: Call Kate directly and she can walk you through more specifically what we feel you
need to do. And the other option is to go in front of the City Council on the 25th. You can either
do it in person or present in writing as far as your issues you brought up tonight. So there's
different options that Kate can walk through with you tomorrow.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...we will do everything We can, make every effort we have to do...
Peterson: We want you here too but we want to be fair to all the other businesses in the city also
SO.
Zong-ming Cheng: ...thank you very much. Good night.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO SECTION 20-913 (C), LIGHTING, TO
REGULAR THE HEIGHT, SPACING AND TYPE OF LIGHT FIXTURES.
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Sidney: Just only one comment and I mentioned I guess my concern about the definition of
photometrics. If you could add that in.
Kirchoff.' Sure.
Peterson: That was one of my questions. What is the definition of photometrics?
Aanenson: I can show you.
Kirchoff: One moment please.
Aanenson: When we get a lighting plan they show the photometrics that shows how much light
actually can pinpoint a location. It might be 5 feet on center. 10 feet on center. What we review
to see what, it's hard to read but how much light is at each position. So that's where we get to,
we get to the edge to see it's a half foot candle at the edge. And you can see how bight the
brightest point is on that so that's a photometric plan.
Joyce: Your saying that light trespass is not in the ordinance right now...
Kirchoff: That's correct. It's not specifically stated in the ordinance so the City Attorney
suggested that I remove that term from the ordinance amendment.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Joyce: Why can't we add it to it?
Aanenson: He thought it was a tough definition to defend.
Joyce: I can understand that. I think this is important but I find a hard time trying to get my arms
around it to make any sense out of it.
Aanenson: He felt like trespass, he said light trespass is pretty ambiguous and it'd be difficult to
try to defend that type of a term so he was, thought there was enough strength in the other parts
of the ordinance that we could defend it that way.
Joyce: The only other question I had was, as far as the park lighting. You said that this would
not be part of the amendment to the ordinance but a policy statement. Are we going to have a
policy statement on this?
Kirchoff.' Well that was mentioned at the November 18th meeting that the Planning Commission
had concerns about park lights that exist in the city and instead of putting in ordinance
amendment saying regulating park lights, what we can have is all the park lights that come
through can be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to them being installed. And like I
said in the staff report, it usually takes place after the site plan has been approved.
Joyce: Is that a ton of....for us or?
Aanenson: I don't think so. I think it's important that you do look at it. It's been something
that's probably been an oversight that we don't always see. For example Lake Ann has got
additional lights going in now. That was just put in the capital improvements. You may not see
that so we don't always see the implication and what the spillover is so I think that we would
request that they do photometrics. You take a look at that and maybe give some
recommendations as far as shielding or whatever.
Joyce: ...park referendum and how many parks are going up.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I know you haven't asked for my comments but this seems like a staff
deal. I think policy is that we should have a policy that park lights don't spill over by the, I don't
need to review it. It's pretty mechanical. I don't want to do it. It's their deal.
Peterson: Well as long as...
Conrad: Well it seems simple to me and that's naive. But if you don't, if you shield the lights,
I've got to say a couple things. If we've got a consultant that really feels that shielding the
neighbors is important, the consultant should be fired because he's not doing it.
Aanenson: Right,.and.the problem is,
11
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Conrad: Very seriously.
Aanenson: A lot of it's in the winter with the ice rinks. There's a lot of, that's when you're in
the neighborhoods more and that is an issue for when they're on later and you don't review those
but Ladd brings up a good point. That might be something that we should be saying that they're.
Conrad: They're not doing it. And I got examples, a couple and I gave them before. I won't do
it again, but they're not doing it and it seems simple to me that we shield lights to not spill over
the boundaries. I don't care if it's a 200 feet tall lighting fixture in a park. I don't care. I do care
that it's not shining into neighbors. And my example was two blocks away. It's at you. That's
not acceptable. So again I don't think I want to see individual things coming through Mr.
Chairman. This is my personal feeling that I think that's a staff deal. That's part of an ordinance
that probably should be tied, you know it's lighting. I don't know why I need a separate
ordinance. I don't know why I need a policy statement. I think we need the same ordinance
saying park lights should, you know just another section in this ordinance says park lights will
have shields so they don't do something. Whatever that is and I don't know what the magic
words are.
Peterson: I agree with you Ladd. I think my concern has been, will Park and Rec, if staff needs
to use us to accomplish itt then I would be more amenable to putting it in there.
Conrad: ...Mr. Chairman, if that's the way that works but then what do you want? Then we
have to develop the criteria to manage it effectively. Because I don't know you manage, I don't
know how you do that. I would think that the requirements should be in an ordinance and.
Aanenson: We're fine with that.
Conrad: This just seems like, Mr. Chairman, it seems like administrative. Like a staff deal and
not a planning commission.
Peterson: Part of the reason why I brought it up last time is it wasn't getting done and if it needs
to be in the ordinance, if it needs to be a policy, I'm indifferent. If it takes a little bit of our time
to get it, to accomplish it, then I would be amenable to doing that but if there's a better way to do
it, you know so be it. But the problem is it hasn't been done to date so what's the best way to get
it done. Kate, I'll return the question to you. We want to ensure as a group that it gets done.
Whether we're involved in it is irrelevant. So I look to you to advise us as to what is the best
way to you to get it done.
Aanenson: Well I think if we leave it to say park lights are shielded, that's good. I think what is
would be good is being back to say to the City Council we want it done and reiterate that fact to
the park commission so they understand that that's part of their charge is to make sure that that's
being dealt with when they're reviewing plans. Generally they do look at the plans too so I think
just to send a strong message up to the council and have them send it back to the park
commission would be good.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Blackowiak: Kate I have a question. Now do the park lights have to meet the same half foot
candle at the property line requirement?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, so where is your...for the lights that you're talking about way before any of
this was ever.
Conrad: ...this is direct shining.
Blackowiak: So what's wrong?
Aanenson: They're not shielded. They're not down cast. They're not shielded. They're not
down cast, right. Exactly.
Blackowiak: So do we have to change that?
Aanenson: Right. That's what I'm saying. Go back to the council and have the park
commission and then they should go back and correct that.
Kirchoff: I was just going to comment. It does say in the ordinance that light fixtures should be
shielded. That's something that yeah, it's in Section (c) and that's been in existence since.
Joyce: Should it be changed to...
Aanenson: Well part of it is...project and that's what I'm saying, these go up to the council.
Kevin's right, as we're putting more parks in, it's going to be a bigger issue. Skating rinks.
Parks. We're causing light to trespass and that's going to continue to grow.
Peterson: Based upon what you just heard, what do we need to do tonight to most effectively...
Aanenson: I think I'd just add a caveat to send up to the council. Motion or however you choose
and then add that we would request...ensures that the city projects also follow this policy.
Peterson: I can deal with that.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman? So you're comfortable in your recommendations or in your staff report
that a separate policy statement or an amendment or something. But we don't need, what you're
telling me is we don't need that.
Aanenson: No we don't. No.
Conrad: We're saying this rule can apply to everything.
Aanenson: That's what we should be doing, correct.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Conrad: Okay.
Joyce: Without reading through this again, do we have a consultant go to each of these lighting
consultants is it? What I read in here that they hire somebody to go to the park in setting up
lights and looks at the photometrics and all that.
Kirchoff: The consultant looks at the use, if it's a soccer field, a baseball field and determines
the light intensity as well as the lamp light.
Aanenson: Which is the same thing that's done on a parking lot or whatever, right.
Joyce: ...they have this thing on the exterior light...was more than most auto dealerships.
...50% more than auto dealership. So I think definitely that...
Peterson: One other question going back to parks. If we limit the fixture height to 30 feet, isn't
that going to be a killer?
Aanenson: You would have to exempt that. I mean it's, it's not going to work for adult softball
league or yeah. Yeah~
Conrad: That seems logical. So what do you war~.t us to do tonight? Because the rules really
don't totally apply to parks~
Peterson: Is that the only one that wouldn't?
Kirchoff.' Parks? Yeah, I would think so. Yeah.
Peterson: So put that into the policy. Excluding parkland lights or something that is more...
Well it's a matter, let's put it in there so we acknowledge the fact that it's there.
Blackowiak: Okay or else just make it, instead of making an exclusion, say all fixtures are 35
feet. Park fixtures can go up to 65 or whatever the magic number is .... Lake Ann and there were
some, some of the examples that go up to 80. I don't know if they necessarily need to or not. I
don't know. Maybe we say that park fixtures can go up to x number of feet so that kind of makes
it, not an exclusionary thing right away but addresses two separate issues and puts it more
positive light so to speak.
Peterson: I agree. Other comments? Questions? Hearing none, is there a motion and a second
please.
Conrad: I'd make a motion Mr. Chairman that Planning Commission recommend approval of
the ordinance amendment in staff report dated January 6 to Section 20-913 on lighting with the
comments of the staff report (a) through well, slash that. With all the comments in the staff
report with the two changes. One that is recommended by the city attorney in the staff report are
14
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
again in the memorandum on January 6th and also to Section 20-913, (c)(1) where it says fixture
heights shall not exceed 30 feet. With a clause that said, except in parks where the maximum
could be up to 65 feet. And then with a note t° City Council that we, the Planning Commission
strongly recommends that this ordinance applies to parks.
Joyce: I'll second.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to Section 20-913. Lighting to regulate the height, spacing and type of fixtures
and the amendment to Section 20-1 to include definitions of glare, light trespass and
shielded light fixture as follows:
Section 20-913. Lighting.
(a) Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be
visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates.
(b) No light which is flashing, revolving or otherwise resembles a traffic-control signal shall be
allowed in any area where it could create a hazard for passing vehicular traffic.
(c)
Lighting fixtures should be of a design cOnsistent with fixtures used in surrounding
developments and municipal street lighting. Shielded high pressure sodium fixtures are
required.
(1) Fixture height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, except in parks where it shall not
exceed sixty-five (65) feet.
(2) All fixtures must be shielded and have a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90
degrees.
(3) Photometrics shall incorporate existing light fixtures, public or private, that may
impact the site.
(4)
All outdoor light fixtures existing and legally installed prior to (ordinance adoption
date) are exempt from the requirements of this article, unless work is proposed in any
one (1) year period so as to replace fifty (50) percent or more of the existing outdoor
light fixtures, or to increase to the extent of fifty (50) percent or more the number of
outdoor light fixtures on the premises.
Section 20-1. Definitions.
Glare: Light emitting from a luminare with an intensity great enough to reduce viewers' ability
to see and, in extreme cases, causing momentary blindness.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 1999
Shielded Light Fixture: A light fixture with cutoff optics that allows no direct light emissions
above a vertical cutoff angle of 90 degrees.
Note: The Planning Commission strongly recommends that this ordinance apply to city
parks.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I was just going to bring up that on the January 20th meeting you do have a
subdivision, or site plan for a Quick Trip gas... Right now I'm planning on just doing some
general training planning on issues that you'd like us to talk about. Otherwise we'll probably
be... That's all I had.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated December 2, 1998 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: We do have our comp plan up to the Met Council. We got back a couple comments
of things that are missing but we're pretty close to getting it back... It will go back to City
Council for final approval. That is contingent upon the Met Council approving it so hopefully...
.end of the month, first part of February.
Peterson: Do you want to talk about the vice Chair and chair?
Aanenson: Oh, yeah. We do have two planning commissioners that are up too. Craig being one
of them and Allyson Brooks too so we will be discussing it at a work session with the City
Council...but then also it's this time of year. Selecting a new chairman. I don't know if you
want to do it this meeting. We can put it on the next agenda if you'd like.
Peterson: I'd like to put it in the record that if anybodywould like to volunteer for either of
them. Contact either Kate or I and we'll put it on next.
Aanenson: And I'll put the by-laws back in too. The schedule.
Peterson: Anything else?
Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
16