PC Minutes 17-17Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017
Planning Commission Resolution #2017-01: Commissioner Undestad moved,
Commissioner Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission adopts the
attached Resolution of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission Finding that a
Modification to the Redevelopment Project Area and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 Conform to the General Plans for the
Development and Redevelopment of the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TH
470-480 WEST 78 STREET – MEDICAL ARTS BUILDINGS: SIGN PLAN REVIEW
TO AMEND CURRENT BUILDING SIGN PLAN TO CONCUR WITH CITY
STANDARDS.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I indicated to you that
I did pass out a slight change and I’ll go through this amendment but the, this item does require
because it’s a site plan amendment and we have a lot of different, we have a variance on layer
but a site plan amendment does requirement approval because it’s actually like a rezoning.
We’re changing the terms of it so this will have to go to the City Council for final approval but
the applicant, Mason McClellan, owner of Chanhassen Medical Arts is requesting a change to
the two different buildings located on what we call the Medical Arts Building, Phase I and Phase
II. It’s zoned Business Highway and there’s a percentage of wall façade that can be used so they
th
are, again they’re located just to the east of where we are today on West 78 Street. So the
existing sign band on Phase I and II was, when this building was put into place was very narrow
in scope and the fact that there’s a designated sign band. Then there was a minimum for letters.
There’s also a maximum for logo and the signs were intended to be on the front and back of the
building. Originally there was more office in there and now there’d be kind of some quasi type
uses in there. Maybe kind of more retail or medical office and some professional things like
MacPhail Center is also in there so they’ve been looking at the different, the criteria of the sign
band again which was put in place a number of years ago so in looking at the two different
buildings, trying to keep the band at the same width between the two. Looking at our overall
sign ordinance and trying to be consistent with that. We’d like to, as requested here and what
we’ve looked at, you can see in the staff report where we did a summary. MacKenzie had
looked at some of the surrounding uses in the area to see how we’re being treated and making
sure that these are being treated similarly. So on Phase I there was the 3 foot designated and then
on this one we changed it. There was a 2.2 in there. We want to both be at the 3 foot and that
would be consistent so when you’re looking across that band that that width is the same across
both buildings and not have a narrower penalized one so the maximum footage, square footage is
still restricted to the band on the building so you can see where there’s existing bands. The main
criteria then is the lettering so with 3 feet you could have two rows of lettering which some of
them do. You can also have the logo. There was restrictions originally on the size of the logo
but as long as it stays within that band we’re going to allow that to move forward. So you can
see the 12 inch maximum letter size is smaller than other similar properties allowed in the city
and the 14 that we looked at, 8 didn’t meet current ordinance. The largest sign in Phase I is 3
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017
feet high with the 21 inch letters. Prior to 2014 portions of the Phase I were allowed 3 foot so
over time as we’ve had different people reviewing those there’s been a little bit of interpretation.
Generous interpretation so to make everybody whole we are agreeing that the sign band, to make
it 3 feet across both buildings and we think that’s reasonable. Again that’s the front and the
back. You can see here now where you’ve got the MacPhail and then some of the dental offices
and the like to be consistent so up in this area you can see where it’s the much narrower band,
the 12 inch letter. I know it’s kind of hard to read that on there but so this is being requested by
someone that wants to put a larger band on there. So with that we think it makes sense. We are
recommending the 3 foot band. So if you look at the attachment that I handed out, that’s what
you’ll be adopting. That will be the new sign criteria for both buildings so again we want to
change it to their consistency so that’d be on Phase II as shown in bold. Where it says 2 feet
we’re changing that to 3 feet, the band so they’d be consistent between the two buildings. So
with that this is a public hearing and I’d be happy to take any questions that you have.
Aller: Any questions at this time for staff? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Just for clarification. The sign band on both Phase I and Phase II of the buildings would
roughly be the same height relative to the ground.
Aanenson: That’s a great question. Yep they are pretty much the same height, yep.
Weick: So it’s kind of a consistent eye line.
Aanenson: Yeah and that was one of our goals in looking at this is, unfortunately I didn’t catch
this before it got written the difference between the two but I think it’s good to have it consistent
on your eye. The visual part of it.
Weick: And then, can I have one more question?
Aller: Of course.
Weick: On page, well on either page I guess. You know on the handout where it says b(1). Is
that consistent to have the building on the monument sign not to have tenant identification but
only to have, I assume it’s just the address of the building. Is that normal?
Aanenson: Well that’s what we did on this one.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: It’s not the normal. On this one I think we tried to, not all those tenants can get on
there so it’s kind of a, it can be a leasing thing too and then it gets some confusion so really the
goal there was to get identification that you know where you are. This is the Medical Arts
Building.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: So if you’re a person that you’re going to says I’m in that Medical Arts Building then
you know where to find it. They may just have a sign on the back.
Weick: Okay. And are the, and I’m sorry if I’m getting too detailed but is the address for the
entire building, like for instance the one story one I think says 480 or something on there.
Aanenson: I think there are just suites on the inside.
Weick: So is it like 480 and then Suite 200 or whatever?
Aanenson: Yeah, somebody…yep. There are suites, yeah.
Weick: I just want to make it easy for people to find it.
Aanenson: Nope but that’s why you would say 480 would be the identifier on there.
Weick: Right.
Aanenson: And there’d be suites on the inside.
Weick: Your GPS would take you there and then it would.
Aanenson: Correct, correct.
Weick: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Great, thank you. Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: And I just want to confirm that so these proposed changes would just make the sign
more consistent with the existing city’s sign code, is that correct?
Aanenson: Correct, yep. Yep.
Madsen: Thank you.
Aller: Okay. So at this point in time would the applicant like to come forward or is the City the
applicant on this?
Aanenson: Nope. There’s someone here that would probably like to speak to it.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017
Aller: So if the applicant would like to come forward at this time they can choose to make a
presentation or not.
Mason McClellan: I’m Mason McClellan and I…but if you guys have any questions. Other
than that I mean she covered everything.
Aller: Okay so you really have nothing to add?
Mason McClellan: No, no.
Aller: The articulation of the buildings themselves will stay the same?
Mason McClellan: Yep.
Aller: So it will just be, it’s pure signage?
Mason McClellan: Yep. I recently moved in and the MacPhail Center obviously they’re up
there and it didn’t occur to me that there was a difference since I’ve had my sign in the city for
the last 8 years and now moving it’s been a little.
Aanenson: If you can go to the microphone and talk.
Mason McClellan: Sorry, and moving has been a little trickier than I had anticipated but
MacKenzie was kind enough to work with me and he just said I should be here and if you guys
had any questions for me, here I am.
Aller: Additional questions of the applicant? No, thank you very much sir.
Mason McClellan: Well great, thank you. Appreciate it.
Aller: Alright, this is a request that was before the public so we will have a public hearing and
I’ll open the public hearing at this point in time so any individual that’s present can come
forward and speak either for or against the item before us. Seeing no one come forward I’m
going to close the public hearing and open it up for commission discussion and proposed action.
Randall: I’ve just got one statement. I think it’s nice that it’s going to be consistent with both
Phase I and Phase II so it will add to that so.
Aller: I agree. When we do a lot of these projects, especially in the downtown area and when
we like to get, I know I like to get PUD’s because we can usually squeeze a little bit more value
out for the city as a whole and community and we can tweak things but here when we’re talking
about signage and the capability to see what’s out there. We want people to shop and stop and
provide services and receive services here in the city and you can’t do that if you don’t know that
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017
they’re there so the consistency in the signage I think is important. Alright I’d entertain a motion
if no one has any other comments. Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
attached sign plan criteria for Medical Arts Buildings Phase I and II and adoption of the attached
Findings of Fact and Decisions.
Aller: So I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Randall: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a valid second, any further discussion?
Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the attached Sign Plan Criteria for Medical Arts Buildings
Phase I and II; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
th
Aanenson: These items are going to the City Council on September 25.
Aller: Yes so those of you present or at home that would like to follow this item it’s before the
City Council on September 25, 2017 and again the documents that have been provided to the
City and that were just voted on are available to you on the website. Moving onto our second
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING:
20 HILL STREET: VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION WITHIN THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK.
Aller: For the record we received a couple of attachments to the application package that was
previously received and those consist of several emails and if you could address those during the
presentation that would be great. They are being read and considered and are being made part of
the package.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. So this item too unless
th
it’s appealed would stop here. Otherwise it would go to the City Council also on the 25 so
there’s a number of days to appeal this decision. So the applicant, Sather Design Build, on
behalf of Steven and Beth McAuley are requesting a variance to expand their garage. The house
is located on 20 Hill Street. It is zoned residential single family. It’s 15,000 square foot
minimum lot area, 30 in the front, 10 on the sides, 25 percent hard cover, 75 foot lake setback
and the 30 foot bluff setback. So the house is steep towards the back and you can see the change
in grade. It does have a 22.7 percent lot coverage. It meets the setback. The house was built in
1961 with a 25.5 front yard setback. It has an existing garage which I’ll show you in a minute
7