RE Youngstedts - Couple of questionsMatt,
Just a few quick thoughts. It may be more accurate to label the “condition for approval of variance” slide as “probable conditions”. Ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council
will determine what conditions they feel are appropriate. The ones we went over and which are listed on your slide are those which I believe staff will recommend, but the Commission
or Council could choose to add additional ones or remove or modify the ones that staff recommends.
Regarding your question. The relevant provisions in the City Code are:
Sec. 20-1267. - Uniformity of construction, design, etc.
(a) All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial
and industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented for site plan review, proposed signs for the development shall be presented concurrently
for staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for approval by the planning commission and city council.
(1) All wall signage shall use individual dimension letters, at least one-half inch deep. Company symbols, display messages (not greater than six inches tall), pictorial presentations,
illustrations, or decorations (anything other than wording) and less than 20 percent of the total sign display area are exempt from the individual dimension letter requirement.
(2) Wall signs shall be either illuminated or non-illuminated and shall meet the following criteria:
a. Backlit or exposed lighting shall be architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi-tenant building.
b. If a neon sign is illuminated by exposed neon or LED, the luminous shall not to exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and not to exceed 500 Nits
between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise.
c. If a sign is non-illuminated, downcast decorative lighting compatible with the building architecture may be used.
(3) Company logos shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the sign display area and are exempt from the individual dimension letter requirement.
(b) All permanent monument or pylon signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant
commercial and industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented for site plan review, proposed signs for the development shall be presented
concurrently for staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for approval by the planning commission and city council.
(1) All center, development name or an individual tenant building signage on a monument or pylon sign shall use individual dimension letters, at least one-half inch deep.
(2) Registered trademarks, company symbols, display messages (less than six inches tall), pictorial presentations, illustrations, or decorations (anything other than wording) and
less than 20 percent of the total sign display area are exempt from the individual dimension letter requirement.
(3) In multi-tenant buildings, tenant panels may be used and shall be exempt from the individual dimension letter requirement.
(4) Company logos shall not occupy more than 30 percent of the sign display area and are exempt from the individual dimension letter requirement.
(Ord. No. 231, § 1, 1-9-95; Ord. No. 423, § 11, 6-12-06; Ord. No. 468, § 3, 8-11-08; Ord. No. 485, § 2, 10-12-09; Ord. No. 507, § 6, 6-28-10; Ord. No. 544, § 1, 6-25-12)
I think that a case could be made for either of the highlighted provisions applying, but as it is their corporate logo and the 4th provision seems the most relevant. With this reading
it would not be required to have the ½” dimensioned letters. It would have to be less than 30% of the sign’s display area, but I don’t think that will be an issue.
I *think* the direction sign should be fine, but we may request some modifications such as a reduction in the size of the logo and/or the addition of the word “entrance” just to make
sure it meets the strict definition of a directional sign.
I think that covers everything. I’ll begin working on the report itself early next week and will let you know if a closer examination reveals anything that I’ve missed. I don’t think
that will be the case, but I have been surprised before.
Best,
-MacKenzie
MacKenzie Walters
Assistant Planner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1132
FX. 952.227.1110
<http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/> www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
<https://www.facebook.com/City-of-Chanhassen-Minnesota-Government-74951569087/> <https://twitter.com/CityofChanMN>
From: Matthew Duffy [mailto:mattduffy@thinkdigitalsigns.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 1:05 PM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: RE: Youngstedts - Couple of questions
MacKenzie,
Attached are the documents I am taking to review with Youngstedts this afternoon. I hope to get signatures and a check to drop off by the end of the day.
I did add a couple pages related to the Directional Sign.
I will bring physical copies of all the documents.
Thanks for all the help.
One more question: Do the letters of the Youngstedt Logo at the top of the sign have to be push-thru? It might be more difficult to create push thru letters for the logo.
Or do just the letters for the bottom three text faces need to be push-thru?
Thanks - Matt.
From: Walters, MacKenzie [mailto:MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 12:54 PM
To: Matthew Duffy <mattduffy@thinkdigitalsigns.com <mailto:mattduffy@thinkdigitalsigns.com> >
Subject: RE: Youngstedts - Couple of questions
Matt,
I tend to agree, and was a bit surprised that our ordinance doesn’t stipulate a minimum hold time. Since it doesn’t, anything over 8 seconds would likely be deemed compliant. A hold
time of 10 seconds or longer should not cause any conflict with our ordinance.
-MacKenzie
MacKenzie Walters
Assistant Planner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1132
FX. 952.227.1110
<http://t.sidekickopen06.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs64ktrWVQK4jq7fR_5-W63JXmj56dyrKf8QXPtb02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ci.chanhassen.mn.us%2F&si=5563784923971584&pi=6b8816f1-165d-4c6
4-9059-6fcb62f05686> www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
<https://www.facebook.com/City-of-Chanhassen-Minnesota-Government-74951569087/> <http://t.sidekickopen06.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs64ktrWVQK4jq7fR_5-W63JXmj56dyrKf8QXPtb02?t
=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FCityofChanMN&si=5563784923971584&pi=6b8816f1-165d-4c64-9059-6fcb62f05686>
From: Matthew Duffy [mailto:mattduffy@thinkdigitalsigns.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 12:32 PM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us <mailto:MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> >
Subject: RE: Youngstedts - Couple of questions
Thanks MacKenzie.
When the hold time is less than 10 seconds – I usually recommend a minimum of 10 seconds. Less time seems to me not to let people see and register the message.
Thanks – Matt.
From: Walters, MacKenzie [mailto:MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 11:55 AM
To: Matthew Duffy <mattduffy@thinkdigitalsigns.com <mailto:mattduffy@thinkdigitalsigns.com> >
Subject: RE: Youngstedts - Couple of questions
Matt,
I would advise an 8 second hold time. To clarify, the ordinance does not list a specific hold time. It does prohibit flashing, special effects, and animated messages. General provisions
in the ordinance prohibit moving and distracting signs. My understanding is that Minnesota Courts have ruled that when ordinances have restrictions similar to ours hold times of 8 seconds
are required to comply with the ordinance.
Here is the timeline for processing the variance.
Schedule:
Staff report published: December 29th
Planning Commission: January 3rd at 7:00 p.m.
City Council: January 23rd at 7:00 p.m.
60 day deadline:* January 31st
*State law allows municipalities up to 60 days from receipt of application to render a decision. It is unlikely that the council would not render a decision on January 23rd, but it theoretically
could happen.
Also, I want to apologize for not sending you the code sections I promised yesterday. I got sidetracked by other projects and I ran out of time. I’ve attached the relevant provisions
to this email. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Best,
-MacKenzie
MacKenzie Walters
Assistant Planner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1132
FX. 952.227.1110
<http://t.sidekickopen06.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs64ktrWVQK4jq7fR_5-W63JXmj56dyrKf8QXPtb02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ci.chanhassen.mn.us%2F&si=5563784923971584&pi=6b8816f1-165d-4c6
4-9059-6fcb62f05686> www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
<https://www.facebook.com/City-of-Chanhassen-Minnesota-Government-74951569087/> <http://t.sidekickopen06.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs64ktrWVQK4jq7fR_5-W63JXmj56dyrKf8QXPtb02?t
=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FCityofChanMN&si=5563784923971584&pi=6b8816f1-165d-4c64-9059-6fcb62f05686>
From: Matthew Duffy [mailto:mattduffy@thinkdigitalsigns.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 10:54 AM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us <mailto:MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> >
Subject: Youngstedts - Couple of questions
Hi MacKenzie,
I am writing up some information for Youngstedts.
Can you please confirm the following for me?
· Minimum length (hold time) of time for an electronic message center message?
· Is this the right schedule?
o Planning Commission meeting = Jan 3rd
o City Council Meeting = Jan 9th
Thanks - Matt.
Matthew J. Duffy
Think Digital Signs
<http://t.sidekickopen06.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XZs64ktrWVQK4jq7fR_5-W63JXmj56dyrKf8QXPtb02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ThinkDigitalSigns.com&si=5563784923971584&pi=b5e2996f-2ab5-4ac9
-9a99-7637e4a6bff5> www.ThinkDigitalSigns.com
612-669-6700
<http://t.sidekickopen06.com/e1t/o/5/f18dQhb0S7ks8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9gXrN7sKj6v5dspMW7grYPv5vwq9jW8qSJ-l1pctGFW2fN0Wl1k1H6H0?si=5563784923971584&pi=6b8816f1-165d-4c64-9059-6fcb62f05686>