Loading...
PC 2018 09 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Michael Clauson 8381 West Lake Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE TARGET BUILDING. Walters: Item 1 is Planning Case 2018-15. It is a requested amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development. So Target Corporation has requested that the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD be amended to allow signage along 3 elevations. So just so people know what we’re talking about when we say the Chanhassen Retail Center. It is an 18.69 acre planned unit development in red here in downtown Chanhassen. The anchor tenant is the Target and the planned unit development has unique sign standards which differ from the general city’s code and they limit businesses within that development to signage along 2 street frontages with a maximum of 15 percent wall area. So if we look at just the existing Target building they currently have signage along the western elevation. This is a visual of the elevation as it stands after their recent remodel. They also have signage along the southern elevation and what they would like to do is place a sign along the northern elevation to help raise awareness and advertise the new liquor store that’s been added to the building. So in evaluating this request staff did a little bit of research. First thing we did was we looked at the Chanhassen Retail Center and it’s wall signage. We went through the different businesses. We found that the building that hosts the Noodles and Company and the Jersey Mike’s Sub has signage along 3 elevations. This is consistent with the district because it’s inhabited by two different businesses so each business only has signage on 2 facades. We also found that the Perkins has signage along 3 elevations, north, east and west. Staff believes this was the result of a permitting error. So we then also looked at the different elevations and as the development currently stands there is already signage along every cardinal direction, north, south, east and west. We looked at how different sign plans and planned unit developments had handled sign elevations and street frontages. We Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 2 found the most common were either limiting it to 2 frontages. We had 11 of 29 that did that or allowing one per street frontage which is the base standard of the city code. 15 did that. So the request to have signage on additional frontage would not be out of line with how other developments and multi-tenant buildings have been treated in the city. Staff also then, well you can see we also then compared everything to the city code and what it would be if it was just handled by the city ordinance versus the PUD. In general the Chanhassen Retail Center is more restrictive on the number of frontages. More liberal on the amount of building area that can be covered by signage. Due to the fact that there are existing buildings within the Chanhassen Retail Center that has signage along 3 frontages and that this is a pretty typical situation a lot of different developments within the city, staff recommends that the provision limiting Chanhassen Retail Center to 2 street frontages be removed. This would allow the development to be governed by the city ordinance in terms of determining which street elevations are allow to have signage. With that I’d be happy to take any questions. Aller: When you say that the, by shifting that, pulling it out of the PUD that one term to make it 2 frontages as opposed to 1 that it will automatically go by city code. Would it be better if we just change the PUD to state that it will go by city code or is that going to impact anyone else? Walters: We could. Aller: I mean is that our desired impact? Walters: Our desire is not to remove all unique provisions governing signage within the planned unit development. The goal was just to, from our perspective to remove the more restrictive street frontage and then to allow the rest of the provisions to stand. The PUD also has you know this is a, outside of wall signage but it specifies one monument sign per property which is different than city code standards and limits the development to one pylon sign. Again under general city code each property would be allow it’s own pylon sign so our goal was to make the smallest possible change that would, well and remove the non-conformity within the Perkins restaurant. Clear up any potential ambiguity about the multi-tenant building that has signage on 3 frontages and accommodate Target’s request. Which we felt was reasonable when we looked at the changes to the building. Advertising needs and how similar developments had been treated throughout the city. Aller: So this modification isn’t going to cause one of the other businesses if they want to change their signage to increase it? Walters: It would allow every building within the PUD to have one sign per street façade so the Perkins for instance would be allowed to have 3. I believe several of the other buildings also have street frontages along 3 elevations and would, if they wanted to be entitled to add a sign along that as well. We do have one PUD in the city where we have unique provisions for the anchor tenant which allow them to have signage on 3 elevations but restrict other businesses Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 3 within that development to have signage on only 2 so it wouldn’t be unprecedented if the Planning Commission preferred to limit this to Target only. Aller: Thank you. Any further questions or questions based on that? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I would just like to clarify how many signs a business could have in the central business district. If that Chapter 20 that’s quoted in our cover sheet, so it’s one sign per street frontage, is that correct? So currently a business that might not be located in the PUD could have a sign on 3 sides? Walters: That is correct. And an example, well I’m trying to think of, oh. No Lunds only has 2 frontages so they’re limited to 2. Off the top of my head I’m not thinking of one that I know for sure is zoned CBD rather than PUD within the central business district but yes, that is the base standard of the code. Madsen: But so a business, if it was on 3 frontages in the central business district could also have as many signs as this PUD area. Walters: They could have signage on each elevation yeah could be treated the same. Madsen: Each elevation, yep. Walters: Yep. Madsen: Just so that it’s fair throughout that area. Okay thank you. Aller: Based on that any additional questions? Hearing none we’ll have the applicant make their presentation if they’d like to do so. If you could come up and state your name and your representational capacity. Leyla Bungee: Good evening, my name is Leila Bungee with Kimley-Horn and Associates. We submitted this application on behalf of Target to add the additional Wine and Spirits sign on the north elevation as part of the recent remodel as MacKenzie had stated. Jay Richardson: Yes, hi I’m Jay Richardson. I’m with RSP Architects and we’ve done the design of the exterior of the building. And coordinated the signs with the sigh company. Aller: Welcome. So could you explain how it’s a coordinated effort on those signs, what the impact would be on the frontage and why you’ve come up with this particular sign scheme. Leyla Bungee: Yeah I can start it. Jay Richardson: Okay go ahead. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 4 Leyla Bungee: So we have been doing a lot of back and forth with planning staff just to make sure that we’re meeting all the requirements currently of the PUD. The wine and spirits addition in the store that was something that came a little bit later after our initial meetings to discuss the signage plan and so once the design had gotten to a point where we wanted to keep the main Target sign the size that it is on the building today, that didn’t leave that much room on the front for the wine and spirit sign to go on the front which I believe is the west elevation so part of that reason was to move it to the north elevation to accommodate the current allowances for sign area. So right now there is a window decal on that new entrance for the wine and spirit sign but Target realized that they haven’t been seeing as many customers as they were hoping with that new liquor store service so adding the new wine and spirit sign on the, yeah I guess the left hand of the building facing the main street that helps advertise that service to people that might not know it’s there today. Aller: Any questions? Additional questions? Thank you very much. Leyla Bungee: Thank you. Aller: At this time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Any individual present may come forward and speak either for or against the item before us. Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Michael Clausen: Hello. Michael Clausen, 8381 West Lake Drive in Chanhassen here. Local business owner. We opened our business 5 years ago and we have, I have 3 sides to my building so when I wanted signage on all 3 sides went to you know, I did not put in a formal request or whatever. I just talked to my friend Sharmeen. Said you know what’s the deal here and she said well you’re only allowed 2 signage on 2 sides of your business. It had nothing to do with the building as I understand it’s each business is allowed 2 sides because I could have, I could have put signage on the south side of my business and the east side of my business. The other businesses, tenants in the shop could have still had their signage so we could add signs on all 4 of them but any individual business can only have signage on 2 sides. That’s how it was stated to me and I’m pretty sure that’s how the city code goes. That’s how, that’s why most of these places only have signage on 2 sides so, and now to come along and you know after the fact and you know probably the reason they’re not doing well is we’ve over developed retail liquor in this city so now we’re trying to figure out ways to accommodate it so we want to change the rules to allow people to you know do something different when the rest of us have all been playing by the rules that were set out for years so. You know I guess I just think in the sense of fairness and what’s right you know they should act under the, they should be subject to the same rules as everyone else in town and to do it after the fact is unfair to the other businesses. You know to say that now I can well you go ahead and put it on 3 sides. Well that ship has already sailed and that’s not in our budget to add a $10,000 sign to the side of the building so that’s my thoughts on, if you have any questions or anything. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 5 Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing on this matter and open it up for questions. Additional questions of staff or comments or action. Yes Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I’m wondering if staff could address that if that business does have the 3 frontages if they could have had the 3 signs or are they in a different business district or what the difference was? Walters: So without knowing a little bit more it’s hard for me to comment. You know if we go back to our sheet if the business’s zoning is planned unit development it, you know we do have 11 different planned unit developments and sign plans in the city that do restrict businesses to 2 elevations. If the gentleman’s business is located in one of those he would have been you know informed that that was the limit. Under base code it is one per street frontage. It is, again without knowing the location it is possible the gentleman’s business only has frontage along 2 elevations. There are other instances where because there’s a residential development nearby we restrict elevations in the PUD and things like that. So that would be my response to that. Mr. Generous? Generous: And the one other thing I would add is that part of a site plan review there could be a limitation imposed on the development to limit the number of signs they have irregardless of what the city ordinance is so. Aller: Okay. Did that answer your question? Do you have a follow up question? Madsen: Well I guess we don’t know the exact circumstances. I just would be concerned about the fairness of, you know if people are told how many signs they can have that after the fact adding more, you know just want it to be fair for all the businesses in the city. Aller: Any additional comments or I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I will make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development amendment 2018-15 and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 6 Aller: I have a motion and a valid second. Any further discussion? I think to Commissioner Madsen’s point we want to be consistent and fair as much as possible throughout the city with all of our zoning and ordinances. In this particular situation we are dealing with a PUD which is a separate zoning in and of itself that’s created for this particular area of property and there were exchanges made in order to achieve that with regard to signage and square footage and that whole process so I kind of look at, and that was the impact of my questioning was I wanted to see whether anyone else within the PUD was going to be impacted so I’m, I’m more concerned with maybe tailoring it to allow for Target to be the only one that gets it at this point in time to determine on a case by case basis whether or not it should be expanded. I don’t know what you opinions would be on that. McGonagill: I was kind of similar thinking Mr. Chairman. Just limit it to Target and take it from there. Aller: Would that be, is that fair to the others that? Undestad: That’d be my feeling is we’re talking about the PUD and the other tenants, the other buildings involved in that were part of that same PUD and, you know I understand the other businesses, you know each case is handled that way but I think if we’re dealing with the whole PUD we ought to look at the whole PUD that way. McGonagill: So it’d be as the PUD is written here. Aller: Yeah that would be my concern is, I want to overall be consistent but at the same time I don’t want to have an impact which is going to create hostility either amongst the tenants or amongst the citizens who all of a sudden have too much signage. Madsen: Yeah. Aller: Any additional thoughts? Randall: Well there are a few in there that already have the, that have more than they’re supposed to based on that PUD correct? Aller: That are non-conforming. Randall: Non-conforming so by us altering the PUD it would bring everyone up to the right level. That would be in conforming. Madsen: My understanding was it was just the Perkins that is on the 3 different frontages and it was in error and the other building, those businesses only have it on 2 frontages each which happens to them because of the 2 tenants happens to be. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 7 Randall: Yep they can only do the 2 yeah. Madsen: The 4 so really no one else is really approved for it. Randall: Okay. Aller: Okay. Any additional discussion? Madsen: I guess I’m just concerned that you know I don’t know if they have to have the sign. I think everyone knows Target’s there. They’ve seen the development and it, you know the other businesses are following that rule so I’m just not really sure what the need is to have an additional sign. Aller: Well I can certainly understand their desire for the additional signage because the usage of that Target was always with a certain expectation of the items that were sold in there. Whether it be coffee or appliances or food or, but this was a separate escalated purpose that has been separated out and they’ve created that and the City has allowed for that liquor license to be placed in there so I think it’s almost like a different use that’s unexpected so I can understand where they would want and their desire certainly would be there for it. I just don’t want it to impact the community standards that we’re placing out there for purposes of signage in general. Tietz: Chairman Aller? Wasn’t too many months ago that we had a variance I think to allow a pylon sign in the parking lot and what does that constitute? Is that another sign because it’s, it was a variance that was requested at that time. That’s what, back in February or March. It was for parking for. Aller: I think it was a height variance wasn’t it? Tietz: Well it was a height but it was, it’s a sign. Walters: If I’m recollecting it was for the pick up area within the parking lot. Tietz: Right. Walters: Those, it was a code change to the city code and that was adding another category of directional signage that could be allowed businesses without a permit so under the pre-existing city code we had allowed any business to have up to 4 directional signs. Maximum 5 feet in height. 4 feet in, 4 square feet display area and we added another category allowing certain types of uses. Grocery stores. Big box retailers to have a pick up sign designating an area for remote, basically just you know stopping by and having goods put in the car in the parking lot. Tietz: Right. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018 8 Walters: And that had unique standards. Tietz: I think that one was 10 or 12 feet. It’s not a 5 or 6 foot sign. It’s a. Walters: My recollection is 12 or 13 feet. Tietz: It was significant I remember because we had some discussion about it’s height and location. Aller: Right. Undestad: Well and that I think that signage for the pick up area part of that shows how retail is changing. Businesses are changing. They need to change with it and this is part of it I think when they have to put a new, the liquor store in there. We never had one, we never had drive up, pick up your groceries you know and so I think, and again to keep it in the full PUD package out there I think that’s the way it should be put in there. Aller: And just to follow up on that a little bit. We also discussed the fact that there will not be drive up pick up of alcohol. Undestad: Right. Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Concerns? Otherwise I have a motion and a second. Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve