PC Minutes
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 3, 2017
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Steve Weick and Nancy Madsen
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, and Mark Randall
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
Aller: Tonight we have 4 matters before us for public hearing. We have a slow no wake zone, a
Chapter 19 and 20 storm water issue, a wetland protection ordinance issue and then an
application by Youngstedt’s for a sign variance. Being that the City is the applicant on the first
3 items I would request that we go ahead and move item 4 up to the top of the agenda so that the
non-community individuals can come forward and make a presentation since they’re here. For
the record we have a quorum and hearing no objection we’ll go ahead with Youngstedt’s sign
variance which is a request to install an 80 square foot monument sign located at 50 Lake Drive
East for Youngstedt's Car Wash, Collision Center and Tire & Auto Service.
YOUNGSTEDT’S SIGN VARIANCE – REQUEST TO INSTALL AN 80 SQUARE FOOT
MONUMENT SIGN LOCATED AT 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST FOR YOUNGSTEDT’S
CAR WASH, COLLISION CENTER AND TIRE & AUTO SERVICE.
Walters: Thank you. So this is Planning Case 2017-02. The variance for 50 Lake Drive East.
The variance is as you mentioned for a 12 foot high ground low profile sign with 80 square feet
of sign display area. The location of this, this variance actually involves 3 separate parcels
although the sign is permitted under the 50 Lake Drive East address. The parcels 40 and 50 Lake
Drive East are adjacent to Highway 5 and 30 Lake Drive East has frontage on Lake Drive.
They’re all accessed from the communal drive on Lake Drive East here. The zoning surrounding
these parcels is predominantly, immediately surrounding is in green. It’s Highway and Business
Services District. To the east is an industrial office park and south of Lake Drive East is single
family residential housing. Free standing signs like the one being requested are permitted in the
Business Highway Services District and also in the Industrial Park District. The zoning for this
district would allow structures with more than 50,000 square feet to have pylon signs of up to 20
feet high or, I apologize. My slide appears to have gotten a little mussed up there. Or less than
50 square feet, 16 feet high pylon signs. The display area for the over 50,000 square feet is
capped at the 80 square feet of display area. Less than 50,000 square feet is 64 square feet of
display area. For the ground low profile signs like we’re discussing tonight the maximum height
for the district is 10 feet for the buildings over 50,000 square feet and those less than 50,000 are
restricted to 8 feet in height. Again with the respective 80 square feet for the larger structures
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017
and 64 square feet of display area for the smaller structures. I should note that the original site
plan for these buildings included a variance for a 12 foot high ground low profile sign.
Electronic message centers are also allowed within the Business and Highway Services District
and in the case of those anyone that’s 64 square feet or over is restricted to no more than 40
percent of the sign display area can be electronic message center. So for an 80 square foot sign
the maximum size would be 32 square feet. So a little bit of history on the site. As I mentioned
when this was first brought before the Planning Commission in 1992 there was a
recommendation to have the 12 foot high ground low profile sign in exchange for the applicant
consolidating the signage from 30, 40 and 50 Lake Drive East into a single sign. The idea was to
reduce the amount of clutter along Highway 5 and also to not have additional free standing signs
facing the single family district to the south across Lake Drive. In June of 1994 the sign plan
was approved with that 12 foot variance. In 1994 the permits for the existing sign for 40 and 50
Lake Drive East were issued and in ’96 the panel for 30 Lake Drive East joined the sign as well.
In 2000 some of the panels were replaced and that has been all of the activity on the sign to date.
So what the applicant is proposing is to keep the existing 12 foot high ground low profile sign.
They would be using the existing sign supports seen here. They would be adding an 80 square
foot sign display area with a 32 square foot electronic message center so this would require a 16
square foot variance from the ordinance’s normal 64 square feet of signage allowed for these
parcels. They are proposing to continue to consolidate detached signage for 30, 40 and 50 Lake
Drive East into the single 50 Lake Drive East sign. The location would be the same as present.
The narrow parcels and narrow building profiles prevent pretty limited wall signage facing
Highway 5. That combined with the 50 foot setback from the highway and then the minimum 10
foot setback from the yard has created some limited visibility for the existing sign which is why
they are requesting relief in the form of an 80 square foot sign instead of the normal 64 foot.
Right here you see the sign location. Again they’re proposing to maintain the current location.
The sign has been there since ’94. We’ve never received any complaints about in terms of
safety, sight lines, anything like that so comparing the existing sign to what’s proposed, as I
mentioned a 12 foot height would be retained. The current sign has three 20 square foot panels.
Those would be replaced with a single 80 square foot panel but it would stay within the current
boundaries established by the sign and they would be installing an electronic messaging center.
For comparison without the variance and consolidation each parcel in theory could have both 40
and 50 Lake Drive East would be entitled to up to a 16 foot high pylon sign with an individual 64
square feet of display area and 28.8 square feet of message center so again the proposed
consolidated signage equals a lot smaller visual impact on the Highway 5 corridor. This is just
recapping again the theoretical different combinations of signage allowed under the ordinance. I
should mention that 30 Lake Drive East would also be entitled to an 8 foot high ground low
profile sign with the 64 feet of display area and the 28.8 square foot message center. So the
staff’s assessment is we agree that the existing sign does have limited visibility because it’s
broken into the three 20 square foot cabinets and it is located a significant distance back from
Highway 5 with cars moving at 55 miles per hour there are definitely some legibility issues. The
height and location would remain unchanged. The net change to this variance would be adding
16 square feet of display area. The applicant would continue to waive the right to any other
detached signage except I believe a small directional sign which they’re allowed without permit
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017
under our ordinance and it is our belief that one 80 square foot sign is preferable to multiple 64
square foot signs along that corridor. For that reason staff does recommend approving the
proposed sign variance with conditions. If you have any questions I’d be happy to take them at
this time.
Aller: I don’t have any questions. Anyone else have a question?
Tietz: I just have one question.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: It’s more for information because I certainly don’t object to this at all. It seems very
appropriate and consistent with the past and obviously a consolidation but is there, with
electronic signs the repetitively of change, is there a distraction factor for traffic on highways if
it, now this one probably is I don’t know pretty static but if it changes rapidly and goes to a lot of
different messages, is there any issue with that from the highway department or from public
safety at all?
Walters: Yeah.
Tietz: Not just this sign, I’m just saying, I’m trying to learn a little bit.
Walters: Yep that’s a, it’s always a concern with message centers. This electronic message
center would be required to meet the conditions of our ordinance so we prohibit flashing,
scrolling, otherwise distracting message centers so when they came around for the sign permit
where the variance would be issued, you know we would speak with the applicant. Make sure
their image change time conformed to our ordinances guidelines and we have had some
preliminary talks on that and yeah.
Aanenson: I would just say the other thing we do control is the level of nits which is the
illumination so if it does, if we do get reports of you know sparkling or something that would be
distracting then we would just follow up and address with the applicant.
Tietz: Yeah. Pretty unique technology today to make changes rapidly and keep…thanks.
Aller: Any additional questions at this time?
Weick: We’re not requiring that they maintain the existing pylons right? They could rebuild
those if they wanted?
Walters: The conditions that staff is proposing would require that any replacement pylons match
the material and construction of the building aesthetics but were the applicant to choose to redo
the pylons, there’s nothing in this variance that would stop them. There is the condition that they
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017
maintain the 10 foot distance south of the property line from the original variance and things like
that but that would be it.
Aanenson: If I may, one of the conditions we do on pylon signs is that they be architecturally
compatible with the building so it is brick, we want these to be brick. If you look around to other
places in the city that’s one of the things we don’t allow just a free standing pole sign. We want
them to be architecturally compatible.
Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing none I’ll ask the applicant if it would like to come
forward.
Dan Smith: Sure, thank you.
Aller: Awesome. Please state your name and address for the record.
Dan Smith: I’m Dan Smith. I’m the General Manager of Chanhassen Goodyear. 23-24 years
I’ve been there. I’m partners in the Chanhassen Car Wash and my partner has the body shop
there. We have kept many city hall staff members, employees on the road through the 23 years
I’ve been there. Through the park department. The hall here but after so many years we just
thought we’d better update the sign. When Abra moved up hugging the highway, I get 3-4 calls
a week, where are you? I’m dumbfounded after 22-23 years of being there so I give them
directions. Now they just zip, and it’s from the back on Lake Drive. There’s a big Abra sign,
Victory sign, they go right by us. They don’t stop so we should have done this a long time ago
and it’s time to get ‘er done but Youngstedt’s, I mean I have never worked for a better company
that donates over a half a million dollars to the Chanhassen, the Eden Prairie, the Victoria high
schools. It’s just a great company to work for and I suspect I’ll be there another 5-10 years. I
don’t know but it’s just, I want people to find us and it’s frustrating when I’ve been there so long
they can’t find us. Even right now I just what the heck. When Abra went up close to the road
there that was a big blockage so I think this proposal just might help us and that little sign in the
back. When our sign guy drives by us and can’t find us, that’s a problem and he did that so
anyways that’s what we’re asking and I appreciate your time and if you have any questions I can
answer them but thank you very much.
Aller: Thank you. I think it answered my questions.
Dan Smith: Thank you guys, appreciate it.
Aller: Okay with that we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to
come forward and speak either for or against this item now is your opportunity to do so. For
those of you at home would like to look at the package you can do so on the website and all these
items will have their reports and all our reports are on the website for your review weekly.
Seeing no one come forward, we’ll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner
comments or discussion. Well I’d just like to thank Youngstedt’s for being such a good
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017
community partner. For providing, for not only community social welfare but also partnering
with us in items like this where it’s an example of business working with the government, with
the City to come up with a plan that works for both and actually reduces the signage and
potential problems and safety and aesthetics and so we appreciate that and I certainly appreciate
that so I will be voting for the variance. Any other comments or hearing none I’ll entertain a
motion.
Madsen: I’ll make a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends approval of the
variance request to allow a 12 foot high ground low profile sign with 80 square feet of display
area subject to the conditions and approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Tietz: Second.
Aller: Having a valid motion and a second, any further discussion?
Madsen moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 12 foot high ground low profile
sign with 80 square feet of display area subject to the following conditions and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a sign permit from the City.
2. The existing landscaping around the sign must be either maintained or replaced in kind.
3. The Electronic Message Center must comply with the City’s Electronic Message Center
Standards.
4. The ground low profile sign must meet the City’s design standards.
5. The ground low profile sign shall be located in the same position as the existing
monument sign or at least 10 feet south of Lots 1 and 2’s common north property line.
6. The materials and color of the brick used in the supports shall be consistent with the brick
and colors used on the buildings on Lots 1 and 2.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017
7. All businesses built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall share the monument sign facing Highway 5
and may not construct separate detached business signage.
8. Directional signage must comply with Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions, and
Sec. 20-1255(2). Directional signs.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: SLOW NO WAKE ZONE, CHAPTER 19 & 20 STORM WATER,
AND WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE.
Jeffery: Chair Aller, commissioners, thank you. I’m going to, if it’s okay I’d like to roll all 3 of
them into one presentation. Before I get going I’d like to clarify that really Chapter 18 and 20
are the chapters that come before this body for the public hearing. Chapter 6 and 19 are included
here for informative purposes so that this body knows where we are going and Chapter 19 has
prompted some ancillary changes to Chapter 18 and 20 that I will discuss as we go through this.
Go through this presentation tonight.
Aller: Great. If I could just take a second to ask and inquire of the commissioners, any
objections to having all 3 items presented at once?
Weick: No objections.
Aller: Seeing none, thank you Jeffery proceed.
Jeffery: Well as you’re all aware we’re going through local water management plan update.
This is a response to changes at the federal, regional, state and local level. So as part of that our
local controls also need to update. Not all 3 of the local controls that are being discussed tonight
are part of the local water management plan but Chapter 19 and Chapter 20 are. But I will start
with Chapter 6 which is the slow no wake zone. So a brief history. So really I’ll be moving in
reverse order of how they are placed on your agenda for tonight. The slow no wake, the first
time we looked at, City of Chanhassen looked at implementing a slow no wake was in 2001.
They looked at Lotus Lake specifically and at that time they could not, it did not pass because
they could not reach consensus about what the triggering elevation of the lake would be. So time
passed and then in October, September and October of 2005 if anybody remembers we had a
particularly rainy season. We saw a lot of infrastructure damage and we saw a lot of lake levels
coming up so at that time they introduced a slow no wake ordinance for all recreational
management classed lakes within Chanhassen. Through a variety of discussions and other
reasons what ended up happening is Lake Susan and Lotus Lake both had a slow no wake
ordinance, special slow no wake ordinance placed on it but none of the rest of them did. Then
that brings us to June, 2014 where the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources after about
12 inches of rain in a 3 week period issued an emergency slow no wake for all area lakes. That
was to be implemented by the local government units, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Victoria at that
6