Loading...
PC Minutes CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Tyler Treat 2148 Wynsong Lane Shawn McCotter 7000 Utica Lane John Butcher 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane Barry Dallavalle 6960 Utica Lane Scott Sather 7090 Utica Lane Terry McGinley 920 Lake Susan Hills Earl Gebauer 8441 West Lake Drive Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way Lisa Mekkelsen 9640 Independence Circle PUBLIC HEARING: COLONIAL SQUARE: VARIANCE TO INSTALL A PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN AND WALL SIGN ON EAST FAÇADE OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 400-416 TH WEST 78 STREET ON PROPERTY ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. OWNER/APPLICANT: VERNELLE CLAYTON, COLONIAL SQUARE, LLC. th Walters: Alright this is Planning Case 17-03. A variance request for 400 and 416 West 78 Street. It is a sign variance so it will be heard again at, for final approval before the City Council th on March 13. Today is the public hearing. The applicant is Vernelle Clayton. This is actually a variance for two different signs. The first is a wall sign to allow a wall sign along the east façade of the building and the second is a monument sign that would be located within the parking lot’s required 10 foot setback. The location of the property as I mentioned is 400 thth through 416 West 78 Street and that’s the intersection of West 78 and Great Plains Boulevard right across from the Chapel Hill Academy right downtown. To the north is an area zoned R-12, high density residential. The building itself is a central business district. To the east is institutional, Chapel Hill. And the rest of the area is the central business to the south. Looking over the signage that’s permitted in the area, I’ve highlighted the sections that would normally Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 apply to this property. They are allowed in 8 foot high ground low profile sign with a maximum of 64 square feet of display area. In terms of wall signage the ordinance would normally permit a sign along the east façade of up to 13 percent of the area because it falls within the 600 to 1,200 square foot. So a little bit of history. This is one of the older sites downtown. It was initially given a sign plan review on December 14, 1998. One of the provisions in that sign plan was that signage would be restricted to the southern façade so that’s one of the variances we’re looking at. th In 2016 they applied for signs on the south and east façade. On July 19 we issued a permit for a sign on the southern façade and that’s when we found the provision that prevented the sign from being on the east façade in the sign plan agreement. Staff has not been able to determine when the pylon sign was erected. It was quite some time ago and we don’t seem to have records. So to look at the proposed wall sign they’re proposing placing it as I mentioned on the east façade. It’s a 5, about 5 ½ square feet. It would be illuminated. It’s the little Dominoes sign shown here. The justification is the current city ordinance does allow signage on the east façade. The omission of the east façade from the sign plan was essentially an oversight. At the time the façade did not have windows. Had not been approved and it was just never anticipated that signage would be desired along that side so it was not included. Parcels with similar zoning in a similar intersection anywhere else in the city, unless modified by a different agreement would be allowed to have signage on both the southern and eastern façade. Regarding the proposed monument sign, the issue is there’s currently a large non-conforming pylon sign that would be removed. They would be putting in an 8 foot high ground low profile sign which is in line with what the ordinance would allow. It would be about 32 square feet of sign display area so well short of the 64 square feet allowed. They would be locating it outside of the right-of-way and outside of the sight distance triangle which are two elements that determine whether or not it would impact visibility or safety on the intersection. It would however need to be located within the 10 foot setback that the property has for all signs and it would be located within the drainage and utility easement so it would need to get an encroachment agreement with the engineering department. The justification is this would reduce an existing non-conformity. Pylon signs are not currently allowed in the central business district unless it’s a property that abuts the state highway. There’s no practical location of monument sign or free standing sign could be placed that would comply with the code just because of the age and the structure of the parking lot. We went out and looked and consulted with engineering. There’s no negative impact on sight lines for the intersection and quite frankly it looks a lot better than the current sign so regarding the proposed sign location, this is the sight distance triangle I was mentioning. It’s a 45 foot intersection from where the 2 improved surfaces, so the 2 roads intersect basically and no sign is allowed within that so I sketched out the island in the parking lot and the section is blue is where we believe the sign could be safely put. So we would require the sign to be located within that area, not within the sight distance triangle. Here’s an existing pylon sign located here. As we mentioned it’s a non-conforming. The sign would not normally be allowed and this is the proposed sign they’d be replacing it with. This is the, so summary would be the wall sign would generally be permitted by ordinance if not for the existing site plan. Staff does not believe there’d be any negative impact in allowing a wall sign in this location. Monument sign, there is no place they would put it that would be in compliance with the existing code. It does not have a negative impact on visibility at the intersection. It would reduce the existing non-conformity and 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 we mentioned again it’s a facelift for the development. We did have one condition we’d like to add. Just because there hadn’t traditionally been any signage along the east façade and there was an interest in the sign plan in limiting that we would request that another condition be added to the ones provided in the packet. That window signage not be permitted in exchange for allowing the wall signage along that façade. Beyond that this would then be the motion if the Planning Commission wish to. And that concludes the staff presentation. If you do have any questions I’d be happy to take them at this time. Aller: I have none. Does anybody have questions of staff on the report? Hearing none, oh Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yes thank you. Is the monument sign two sided? Walters: It would be yes. Weick: Okay. Randall: Where is it in relation to that fire hydrant? Walters: Yep. So the fire hydrant is basically hereish. The way it’s set up, so we would be requiring the sign to be north and east of the hydrant outside of the triangle. Yep we did have the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal look it over and they expressed that concern and we would require it to be located outside of the triangle and out of that location. Randall: And one more question. The window signage is that, can you give me an example of that? Would it be an open or closed sign in the glass or? Walters: Yeah so window signage would be anything affixed to the window. In theory you know it could be window signage is a good standard example is like the Childrens Learning Adventure main sign. There is a window sign but also anything that’s stuck in the window and looking out. It’s a broad term for basically anything displayed through the window would qualify. Randall: Alright. Aller: Based on those questions any other questions? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward they can do so at this time. Welcome. If you could please state your name and address for the record. Vernelle Clayton: Hi, I’m Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle and if you’ve read the full report you know that I’ve been around for a long time on this project. I hadn’t planned to say anything because I didn’t have any issue nor follow up questions when I read the report but 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 apparently I missed the suggestion regarding the window sign. Was that in the report as distributed? Aanenson: No. We discussed that internally. One of the suggestions that we asked so that we didn’t have to go for the sign variance was the application for possibly using a window sign and at that time the applicant chose not to do the window sign so we felt like they were kind of duplicating the process by getting the sign and also now having the window sign on top of it. Because if we would have gone for the window sign there wouldn’t have been a need for a variance. Vernelle Clayton: Well I just want to know what the precedent is for that. I mean all we’re asking for is the same treatment as other buildings have and I think other buildings have signs in the window. Aanenson: Our precedent would have been the recommendation that it’s asking for a variance from what was intended on that site for the wall sign. Vernelle Clayton: I thought that the city’s ordinance said that you could have up to 50 percent of windows covered in retail areas and this is the same thing. It faces a street like all the others. I mean we’re happy to comply with that but I just know that somebody’s going to put a sign saying you know. Aanenson: Right and that was our suggestion in the first place. To not do the variance and put a window sign in. They said they didn’t want to do window signs so now I guess that’s my question. Vernelle Clayton: Well there are window signs and there are window signs. You know there could just be a sign that says open or there could be a sign you know no parking please because that happens there. Aller: Any questions of the applicant as to, is there an intention to use window signs? Vernelle Clayton: I haven’t heard. Aller: Have you used the window signs before? Vernelle Clayton: I haven’t heard if there was discussion about the window sign it must have been between Dominoes and the staff because it wasn’t with me so I don’t know if they intend to. Probably not and I can ask them not to but we’re only dealing with the people today and. Aller: Correct and you may have another tenant. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Vernelle Clayton: And Dominoes who moves out in 5 years and we’re back here for one little window sign so. Sorry. Do you have any other questions of me? Aller: One of the things that they’re looking for, did you have discussions with them on the lit Dominoes sign? Vernelle Clayton: Yes, that’s important to them. Aller: Which is the variance. Vernelle Clayton: Yep that’s important to them and it’s actually it’s a modification of our building plan. Building sign plan. Aller: Okay. I don’t have any questions at this time. Vernelle Clayton: Anything else? Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you ma’am. Okay we’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item before us can do so at this time. No strong feelings one way or another so we’ll close that portion of the hearing for public comment and we will open it up to commissioner comment and discussion. Weick: Is there a difference between a window sign and like an advertisement? I’m confused now. I wasn’t confused before. Walters: Yep there is basically we, the ordinance does not require permits to be pulled for window signs so in a business in a window could, as Vernelle mentioned put a sign that said no parking. No dogs allowed. You can also cover 50 percent of your window square footage with a large illuminated company logo and there is just the way our ordinance treats them there would be no permit involved and it, both would be allowed and equally possible so long as you don’t exceed the 50 percent coverage threshold. Weick: Okay. Aller: So I guess the question becomes the way this is worded, could Dominoes put in a, could not put in a 50 percent lit sign in the window. Walters: The way the condition proposed is worded would preclude any signage along the east façade in the window. If the concern is primarily illuminated high advertising, I believe language could be inserted that would restrict that. For instance no illuminated window signage or you know no illuminated window signage advertising products or service. Something to that 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 effect could convey that while allowing for other types of informational window signs to be allowed. Randall: So if Dominoes leaves do they get, and the sign, the lit sign comes down then is that still a restriction on the property? Or is it only when Dominoes is there with their lit sign? Walters: The way the variance is written wall signage would be allowed along the eastern façade of the building so if a tenant changed that would stand because the language does not specify to the Dominoes sign but rather to the provision that does not allow signage along the east façade. Randall: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions? Based on that I guess Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So is the language for the sign on the east wall similar or more restrictive than other businesses? Walters: A business, somewhat difficult to answer that. I’ll do my best and please ask for clarification. It is more restrictive than the city code for signage. However most multi-tenant buildings have a sign plan that they’ve agreed to which in exchange for some concessions or special treatment. I don’t like special treatment but in exchange for abilities not normally granted by the sign code they trade and allow other restrictions to be placed. In this case I believe hanging signs are allowed in Colonial Square where they are not allowed elsewhere in the city would be an example of this. So in exchange for the ability to put out this type of signage the developer may negotiate a way, a façade of the building or restrict their signage to a certain part of the building or something to that effect. So yes and no. There’s a bit of give and take in the sign plan agreements. Madsen: Okay. And would they be allowed to put an illuminated sign in the window that just said open? Walters: Depending on the language of any condition added regarding the window signage, yes. If you limit it to advertising, you know said advertising was not. Advertising window signs were not allowed then signs like open yes absolutely. Madsen: Okay thank you. Undestad: I’ve got one question you can just clarify for me. So Vernelle Clayton is the applicant on here and normally the buildings would be allowed window signage as typical? Is that right? Walters: Yes. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Undestad: So and she’s in requesting a variance for the wall sign. Walters: Yes. Undestad: But and now we’re going to say okay you can have the wall sign but no window signs. Is that right? Aanenson: Again we worked with Dominoes. Undestad: Okay that’s what I was wondering. Aanenson: We offered Dominoes, you don’t need a variance if you were to use the window sign to put whatever you want in the window sign you wouldn’t need a variance. They said that wasn’t their preference. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Based on those responses any additional questions? Hearing none I would some conversation on this. How are we feeling about the recommendation or motion and what do you want to do with it? Undestad: I guess my, I mean I’m still a little confused. If the building has, well buildings have window signage approved. They’re asking for a variance to put a wall sign on. The tenant Dominoes doesn’t care for window signage but if we change this now and Dominoes moves out in a year does all this go back to the where everybody can put window signs up again? And the Dominoes sign comes down so. Aller: Or does the Dominoes sign allow for another tenant to come in and. Undestad: To put up wall signage. Aller: And put up another sign that’s illuminated. Yusuf: It sounds like more discussion is needed around this. Around the window sign. Is there a real need to include that in this motion right now? Weick: We don’t need to. I mean we can decide not to include it certainly, right? Aanenson: Yes. You can decide to do that yes. Weick: Yes. Or a modification. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Aller: And if it’s not included then we’ve allowed it. If we include it somebody would have to come in and ask for a variance or a modification to put in signs. Weick: Right. I’m just envisioning a Planning Commission in the future hearing a case that says well there was this old condition on this building that said you couldn’t have a window sign on like every other sign in the city. Or every other site in the city and you know we want a variance to go back to that instead of just saying either we, to me do we allow the variance for the sign above the window or not? In which case Dominoes would have to put it on the window. Right? I mean those are the two choices. To me. It doesn’t sound like we have any issues with the sign above the window so. Yusuf: So MacKenzie, earlier you mentioned I think there are some stipulations about how big a window sign can be. Walters: Yes there are. Yusuf: And is the concern here just how much coverage we’re going to have if we have wall signs and window signs, is that the concern? Walters: Yeah that is the essence of the concern. Yusuf: Could we draft up some kind of condition that just kind of sets a limit as to how much is a maximum coverage allowed? Is that an option? Walters: There is a stipulation in, the existing city code limiting window signage to 50 percent of the gross window footage so essentially I guess I would say those calculations have already been made you know and that’s been determined to be a reasonable level for businesses to display in this area. Yusuf: So now you have the 50 percent coverage in the window and then you have the wall so is there a combined total then that would then be applicable here? Walters: There is under ordinance, I could not calculate it out in my head without the, but essentially they’d be limited to a maximum, theoretical signage maximum would be 50 percent of the window display and I believe it’s 13 percent of wall façade along the east but again those are the standards that are applied to the CBD. The central business district throughout the city. Yusuf: So could those standards apply here then so instead of just saying no window signs. Walters: They would. Yusuf: Okay. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Walters: Yep. Yusuf: Thank you. Walters: And if the motion as displayed here were adopted that would be what happened because we do have a condition that the normal city code provisions always apply essentially. Yusuf: Perfect. Okay thank you. Aller: What do you think? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I’m okay with the original motion without the additional restriction of the window sign because there are already rules that would apply to the window sign if someone chose to do that in the future. Randall: I feel the exact same way. Aller: Additional comments, questions or concerns? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad great, thank you. Undestad: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals recommends approval of the variance request to th allow a wall sign along the east façade of the building at 400 to 416 West 78 Street and a monument sign located within the parking lot’s 10 foot setback subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact. Weick: Less number 7 right? Undestad: 7’s not on there. Aller: Right. Walters: Yep number 7 was not in the packet or the motion as drafted so unless you would have moved to add it, it does not exist. Aller: Correct. So I have a valid motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, do I have any further discussion? 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to allow a wall sign along the east façade of the building at th 400-416 West 78 Street and a monument sign located with the parking lot’s 10 foot setback, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the required sign permits from the City. 2. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City in order to locate the ground low profile sign within the drainage and utility easement. 3. The wall sign on the east façade must comply with all provisions of the City Code, and the Colonial Square Shopping Center Exterior Building Sign Plan, excepting the provision in the later that limits signage to the south elevation. 4. The ground low profile sign must meet the sign code’s design criteria and follow the standards for the Central Business District (CBD). 5. The ground low profile sign may not be located within the sight distance triangle depicted in the attachment. 6. If the ash tree is removed a tree must be replaced with one shade tree. The tree shall be a minimum size of 2 inch diameter. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY RIDGE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A 5 ACRE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR THE LAKE LUCY RIDGE SUBDIVISION RESIDENTS. THE REQUEST INCLUDES A PRIVATE SEASONAL DOCK SERVING NON-MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT AND A CANOE RACK FOR SIX VESSELS. THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. OWNER: LAKE LUCY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. APPLICANT: GREG MCGUIRK. Aller: And for the record we’ve received several emails which I know staff will discuss in their presentation which came in after the original filing of the report. They will be received. They’ll be made part of the record and they will be forwarded to the City Council for review as well. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you today is for a beachlot. The location of the site is south of Lake Lucy Road and on the northwest corner of Lake Lucy. It is legally described as Outlot B of Lake Lucy Ridge Addition. Just a 10