Loading...
PC Minutes 9-6-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: VIi Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Debbie Larson, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Vndestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO PLACE A SIGN ON A CANOPY. AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK. PLANNING CASE 05-28. Public Present: Name Address James Ziegler Paul Punt 600 Market Street, Suite 100 14680 James Road, Rogers, MN 55374 Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Any questions? McDonald: I have a question. Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: On the sign, one of the reasons that I guess we can look at for turning something down is that it poses a hazard. The way that this sign is put up, is this going to pose a hazard as far as either a high winds or obstacles to fire fighting? Metzer: Building officials did not feel it would. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I have, one of the reasons why staff was feeling that we should reject this was because they are getting a monument sign, but as I read through here, there may be an issue with that. What's the status of that particular sign? Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Metzer: Well it's currently in the permit process. Submitting drawings and elevations. Footing drawings. It's been approved as a part of the sign plan originally. We're just working on getting the sign to where it's acceptable to be built. McDonald: Okay, so there are no problems with putting a monument sign? Metzer: It's just basically in the design phase. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I think Mr. Chairman. Sacchet: Any other questions? One question. In terms of when Market Street was originally put together, Market Street Station, there's a comment on page 4. The site plan approval for Market Street Station provided for wall signage placed on the north elevation of the building. So at that time there was no, I mean that basically according to our ordinance, that's how much signage they can have. Or is that accurate? Metzer: Right, well that was on the north elevation of the building. That's in reference to tenants further to the east in Market Street Station who don't pave street frontage. Their main entrances are going to be on the north elevation, so Chanhassen city code allows. Sacchet: So that's my question. I mean for establishment there's a limit how much signage we allow across the board. One of the main things is that we try tobe fair. We try to treat everybody the same way. So the signage that is allowed on the north is for the businesses that otherwise would not have any signage place. Metzer: Right, because they don't have street frontage. Sacchet: Okay. While the Americana Bank has, they've maxed out their amount of signage that is by ordinance allowable by having the sign on the south and west. Metzer: Right. And the monument. Sacchet: And the monument sign. So, and the monument sign is sort of on the north. Okay. Okay, that's my question. Thanks for the answer. Keefe: Well just a clarification. Is that signage that they will have will be on the south side facing south and then the monument sign facing which way? Sacchet: South and west they have wall signs. Keefe: Okay. And then the monument sign faces to the northwest? Is that.. .just so I'm clear. Metzer: This is north. Monument sign here facing towards City Hall. West wall sign. South wall sign. Market Boulevard and Market Street. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Keefe: Okay. And the road to the north of that going east/west is what? Is that a driveway? Metzer: That's just, yeah. It's an entrance into Market Street Station. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Sacchet: Alright? Larson: I have a quick question. Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: So would they be willing to in lieu of having a monument sign go up to, I mean would they prefer to have the high sign versus the monument? Metzer: That would require council approval. It's a change to the sign plan. Larson: Okay. . Sacchet: Alright. Is that it for questions. So I'd like to ask, do we have an applicant here? If you want to come forward and add anything you'd like to what the staff presented and maybe you have some questions for you as well. If you want to mention your name and address for the record. Paul Punt: My name is Paul Punt. I'm with Attracta Sign Company and we're the ones that are requesting the variance. I guess the first thing that I'd like to speak to would be the fact that when a corporation comes before the Planning Commission and puts through a site plan proposal, it's impossible for them to at that time determine everything that's going to be going on in that property. And different issues come up as far as what types of businesses. Where they're located, that type of thing and there's got to be some flexibility in that area. The other thing as far as the canopy, the sign of the canopy. One of the reasons they told us it was rejected is because they don't allow signage on canopies and by ordinance this is true and I realize there are some around town that were probably grandfathered in. But this isn't the standard type of canopy you think of as like a gas station canopy, that type of thing. This is more of a part of the structure of the building almost. Similar to what Byerly's has. Byerly's has a canopy where people drive underneath to pick up their groceries. They've got signage on that canopy. TCF. They built a quite elaborate on it just so they could have more signage, but it looks like part of the building but it's still a canopy. And I think this is more in lieu of that type of a canopy. The other issue that we're looking at is the signage as far as the signage on the west side of the building. There are all pine trees planted along that side of the building and when those trees grow up, even at this point already they block that sign somewhat as you drive by. And the taller they get the worst it's going to get. And if you stand on the comer at the stop light on West 78th Street, you can see the end of that canopy. And you can see it under through the trees, the more mature trees there that are on the hotel property, and that will remain that way so they will have visibility from West 78th Street where that small monument sign that's going in there, that will not be visible until you're right at that entrance where you're ready to turn in. I believe staff had 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 a picture in the whole thing here. Yeah here they took a picture of the building showing where that sign would go, which is about right in here. And this picture is actually taken from the same side of the street that the sign is on, and if you're coming down the street, you have to be at this entrance before you're going to be able to see that sign. Now there are some small trees that are planted in front of the end of this canopy but those are more the deciduous type trees that once they grow up and mature you'll be able to still see that sign through it. And I don't know what the total square footage allowed for Americana Bank is for the location but as far as allowable signage, I don't know that they've exceeded their allowable signage or not. I can't speak to that. What else was I going to. Oh, another location that has a canopy sign would be the Country Suites Inn right north of there. And I guess what we're asking for, we don't feel it's exorbitant. The sign is not distractive. I mean it's not going to distract traffic. It's not even illuminated sign. They just want some identification on that side of the building when people pull into that driveway so that they can readily see that's the drive thru. Granted they're going to have that small sign there which hasn't been approved yet but those are other issues but we're just asking that you over rule staff and vote for us. Sacchet: Well we may have some questions for you. You have any questions? Jerry. McDo!lald: I have a question. On the drawing that's in here fQr the proposed canopy sign, is that exactly what you're looking to put up? It's on the first page. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that or not. Sacchet: It's not up yet right? I mean that sign is a montage. Paul Punt: No. That sign is actually, the sign that was taken down off their old building and they just, they want to re-use it on this location. It was on the east side of the building then. Over the entrance and they just want to re-use it here. It's a non-lighted sign and it's individual letters which meets with the city criteria for the sign standards for that building. Individual letters, that type of thing so, but that's exactly what you're looking at there. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I've got for you, in looking at the site. Okay, this will go on more or less a northern face. You know just driving down West 78th Street, looking, you don't have a lot of visibility anyway. Paul Punt: No you don't but you do have visibility from that intersection of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street. Ijust drove by there on my way in tonight. McDonald: And does the bank feel that that lack of visibility can't be taken up by the monument sign and such a lack of visibility could hurt business? Paul Punt: Well the monument sign would not be visible at all from West 78th Street. McDonald: So what this is about is trying to get some exposure on West 78th Street as people are driving down. Paul Punt: Right. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 McDonald: Okay. No further questions. Keefe: Just a clarification. The sign that you're proposing here was on the former building. Where was it located on the former? Paul Punt: It was on the east side. Keefe: On the east side. Paul Punt: Which face towards Applebee's. Keefe: Towards Applebee's and approximately what height was it at, do you know? Was it up on the building or was it? Paul Punt: Yeah, it was up on the building. It was, probably to the bottom of the sign was probably 10 or 12 feet. So this would be just slightly taller but the reason it's located where it is is so that we can attach it right to that heavy steel beam. To give it good support. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: Any questions? Larson: Yeah. Is the monument a lit sign? Paul Punt: Yes it is. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: You kind of touched on one of my questions already. You mentioned you're going to mount it to a steel beam. Is the intent to bolt it on there? I'm trying to get to the safety piece here. Paul Punt: It would probably, it would probably be a combination of welding and bolting. We'd probably weld brackets onto the beam and then bolt the sign onto the brackets. Papke: And what's the sign constructed of? Paul Punt: Aluminum. Papke: Thick? Thin? Is it flexible? Paul Punt: .063 aluminum and then it's painted so the total weight of the sign is probably 150 pounds. 200 max. Two guys could easily pick it up and walk away with it. It's not real heavy. It's not lighted so there's no electrical components. No transformers. That type of stuff. That's where most of your weight comes in. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: Some of your comments raise questions that I'll have for staff but for you, since I believe that what we're up against is not so much sign on canopy or not. I think what we're up against is how much signage we allow. I think there's not we say basically two street frontage, here we do them three. And as I mentioned before, my main concern is that we treat everybody the same way in the city and that will lead to some questions for staff but for you, since we have you up here right now, if indeed it comes down that it's matter of limit of how many signs, would you be willing to trade that sign for another one? Like you mentioned the one on the west side going to be hidden behind evergreens or something. Paul Punt: Yeah there's a lot of, there's some taller pine trees. Sacchet: And then you mentioned that monument sign is not that visible but it's going to be lit so is there a possibility of, how important is this? Is it more important than some of the other signs to you that you'd possibly be willing to give up one of the others? Paul Punt: I don't think the bank would be willing probably to trade the west one off, at least not at this time. But that's something that, I mean I can't make that. That's for the bank... Sacchet: That's not a sign maker question. That's a bank question at that point. Okay. Alright, okay. Thank you very much. Paul Punt: Thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward and address this item, if you have any comments, this is your chance to do so. Seeing nobody getting up, I'm not going to wait very long so I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments. Before we do that though I'd like to ask a question or two of staff, if I may. Staff. I'd like to be very clear about two things before we start our discussion. First of all what's the limit here? I mean what's the restriction on sign on canopy versus number of signs on different street frontages or sides of the building? Can you clarify what our ordinance actually says about that? Metzer: Well canopy signs aren't necessarily prohibited by ordinance. Sacchet: So the issue is not the canopy? Metzer: No. It's the issue is street frontage. Lack of street frontage I should say. This does not have street frontage on this elevation. And also. Sacchet: And we allow for 2 sides, usually not for 3 sides? Am I correct with that? Metzer: Well we allow for signage on street frontage. If they have 3 street frontages they would be allowed 3 wall signs. In this case they only have 2 street frontages. They already have wall slgnage so. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: So that's why they're doing. Now we could say well, we do make an exception for those other businesses that are on that side that don't have street frontage and only have frontage to that north side. How would that be different in this case other than they already have some signs? I mean what's the reasoning there? Metzer: Because Americana Bank has their entrances, their main entrance is on street frontage. Sacchet: Is on the other side on that sign. Okay. Now, another question which may be even more important. In the city here, I know we've made some, we've given some variances in this context. The one I can think of is the Panda. How many of these type of variances have we given? I mean I think that's important and if you try to treat everybody the same way, if it's something that we've given variances before, we need to know about that. If we haven't given variances before, then it'd be a clear case. Do we know? Have we given variances? AI-Jaff: Well after you mentioned Giant Panda, yes I do agree that we granted a variance there. We have amended the ordinance to prevent most of the variances that we received. You granted a variance for Chipotle and Buffalo Wild Wings. .Sacchet: That they had sign in the back towards the parpng lot, right. But that was not street frontage. But did they end up with 3 sides of? AI-Jaff: No. Sacchet: Just that front and back. So the variance was that it was not street frontage. AI-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Which is in essence what they're asking here on too. AI-J aff: But we amended the ordinance. If this is where your parking lot is, that's where your entrance is. Then you can have the sign and then in this case this. Sacchet: And that would justify why the other north businesses have an allowance and how it makes it different from the Americana Bank, so there's a very clear distinction that's anchored in the ordinance. AI-Jaff: Correct. Metzer: If you look on page 3 under Section 20-1303. They're permitted on street frontage for each business and multi tenant buildings for individual entrances that do not front on a public street. A wall sign, this actually says a wall sign shall be permitted on the entrance fa<;ade. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thanks for answering that. Discussion. Comments. Planning Commissioners. Who wants to jump in? Debbie jump in. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Larson: I'll jump in. Okay, on the previous building they were kind of in the similar spot. Did they have 3 signs? Sacchet: Three signs? Larson: On the old building? I mean because they had one in the back that faced Applebee's. And on the front but then they also had one that faced. Sacchet: They were both street frontage, right? Larson: No. The other one that they talked about, about putting on the canopy. Sacchet: No, the old building. Larson: Was on the back side. By the parking lot, right? Sacchet: Yes, that was the main entrance. But they have signage on the south and west side. I think that's what you're asking right? Larson: Well what I'm wondering is. Metzer: I think the applicant can answer that but I'm not sure exactly. Larson: Well what I'm wondering is, are they getting less signage now than they had before? Sacchet: Good question. Larson: Is like it's the bottom line of my question. Metzer: I guess we don't recall exactly where they had signage on their previous building. Larson: Well he said the sign that he's going to put on the canopy was about the, facing east so that would have been where the parking lot is. But you could see it when you were coming off of 5 and you could see it when you were coming down Market Street so I'm thinking in my mind anyway there were 3 signs, no? Ijust don't know. Sacchet: He's nodding. Can we interpret that as a yes? Paul Punt: I believe there were. Sacchet: There were 3 signs there or not. Larson: Okay. So, is it unfair to not give them what they had before? Sacchet: It's a valid consideration, yeah. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Larson: You know. And I don't know if it was their decision to move or you know people that are going in there decided to tear down the building, I mean. AI-Jaff: I think Americana had 2 signs only. Larson: Just 2. I don't remember. AI-Jaff: I'm quite positive. Metzer: I think they also had a monument sign. Sacchet: They had a monument out there, yeah. Larson: I mean I never had a problem seeing it but, there was a bank there so I didn't really take.. . Sacchet: Interesting. AI-Jaff: We, I worked on th.at site plan. I am positive there was no variance done fOJ. Sacchet: There was no variance for the Americana Bank before. AI-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, well that's a clear answer. Thanks Sharmeen. Any more comments from this side of the crowd? Papke: I think with the monument that's going on up in front, there's plenty of signage on that northwest side. I don't think we need to have a variance to add a second one on what is essentially the same side. Granted it's a little bit smaller and not quite as visible but it's a sign. Sacchet: Deborah? Zorn: I agree with Kurt. In fact I think perhaps the sign which would be over the drive thru might even be blocked earlier than the monument sign with some of the existing trees that we see on page 9 to the left so while it might be more visible now, I think down the road the monument sign lighted might be even more visible and I feel that would be adequate. Sacchet: Okay. Jerry, more comments? McDonald: Well I guess you know from looking at this, it doesn't seem to pose a safety hazard. There was nothing extraordinary about the sign. It's not going to be lit and there was a letter in the report that I guess one of the neighbors directly to the north had no objections. I guess I could vote for this on two reasons. First of all, this is an entrance. It's not your normal entrance but it's an entrance for a drive up which is cars and again that is part of the bank's business is, it's not only the walk-in traffic but this is the cars that's coming through. That is a drive up and 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 that is the entrance for that. The other point, I did go out there today and I kind of looked at things. Yeah, at that intersection he's right. You can see the bank. You couldn't see a monument sign but you could see the bank. You move away from that intersection and I think you kind of lose it between the trees that are further down by where the Country Suites are at and also at that comer where the old Edina building's at. But right in that intersection area you could see the canopy. So from that standpoint, you know that again would give them access as far as their business and if that's part of what we look to do with businesses is to give them exposure. I could vote for it on those two reasons and I think it falls within what our code would allow. I mean if you look at it from that standpoint, that it is not, you know they do have more than one entrance and this is their auto entrance and that is a big part of their business. And also if we do grant signage for the street, what about West 78th Street. The monument sign is not going to give them that exposure, I agree with that. All that does is help point out when you get down, this is where you turn in. So for those two reasons I guess I would be in favor of it. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Dan. Keefe: Yeah, I'm kind of on the fence on this whole but I guess where I come down on it is, I think I agree that we need to, let me ask you kind of another way. If we're going to be granting a variance for this, ~o we need to approve a hardship in regards to the reasop.s why? To grant a variance on this? Sacchet: That's not a variance where we need hardship and all that sort of stuff, right? Keefe: No? It isn't because I did see something about hardship in here but if you don't have to grant. Metzer: Well on 20, on page 3 again. Section 20-1253. City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship. Sacchet: So, does it cause a hardship? No, it doesn't. Keefe: No. I'm having a hard time finding how not having this sign would be a hardship. I can understand yeah, it might help to promote the business a little bit better. They are going to have a northwest facing sign. The visibility, you're going to be at grade. Yeah, so you can maybe make an argument there's a hardship there maybe but I don't think it's clear cut in regards to that. At least from my perspective so, I think where I come down on it is, I think I'm just not finding enough evidence to grant a variance at this point. Even though it's close. Larson: May I go one more time? Sacchet: Debbie, go ahead. Larson: Well it's got kind of a goofy driveway leading into this canopy, and leading out. All the way around the building. What I'm wondering is, as far as if we were to get a real heavy 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 snowfall, where is all that snow going to be pushed and will this monument sign be covered? And therefore it would be hardship because people aren't going to know where the bank is or the entrance is on that side. And so anything up high will be visible. And you know I don't know the specifics of the monument but would it be tall enough that if we did have a large amount of pile of snow that gets pushed over there, would you still be able to see it? Sacchet: Josh, you have some wisdom on that? Metzer: The monument sign will sit just under 6 feet above ground. The base of it is 30 inches. The display area itself is 36 inches tall by 4 feet wide. Sacchet: It'd be a very big snowfall. AI-Jaff: Well the other thing. Larson: I'm not saying necessarily the snow but the pushing. You know the piles that get pushed off the street. You know sometimes those can be, they might be taller. AI-Jaf(: Sometimes, I don't know how the site is going to worIs:. exactly. However, often you will see snow trucked off site so that might be an option. Sacchet: Well you know I could really go either way, just to make my comment. I could go either way on that. If we go literally by the ordinance I think it really doesn't work. If we go little more looking at it in terms of common sense. Obviously a business likes to get the more exposure the better. It's not a lit sign which to me has some weight. It's an existing sign. I mean from that angle it's nice. But then on the other hand, I think it doesn't make a difference because either way it's going to have to go to City Council because we are split down the middle. We're not going to have the majority in that we can settle it here tonight, so this thing's going to have to move forward to the City Council to make a decision, and frankly it is in my understanding very clearly more a City Council question to make a judgment call which in this case it boils down to more of a judgment call. If we are strict to our role as the Planning Commission, we probably need to deny it because our role is to look at the city ordinance. If you look at the ordinance, it does not fit. So on that basis, if you ask the Planning Commission, you probably should hear a nay, but looking at the overall context which is more the City Council's responsibility to look at, chances are pretty good that it may be looked at different. I mean I don't know. That's for you to find out. And so really the way it's split down the middle, whether I go yeah or nay is not going to make a difference. It's going to go to City Council anyway. So with that I'd like to invite a motion here please. Papke: Okay. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance number 05-28 for a request for relief from city ordinances in order to place a non-illuminated sign on a bank drive-thru canopy without street frontage based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following. Number 1, the applicant has not demonstrated hardship to warrant a variance. And number 2, the applicant has adequate signage. Sacchet: We have a motion. Do we have a second? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Zorn: I second. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-28 for a request for relief from city ordinances in order to place a non-illuminated sign on a bank drive-thru canopy without street frontage based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated hardship to warrant a variance. 2. The applicant has adequate signage. Papke, Zorn, and Keefe voted in favor. McDonald and Larson voted in opposition. Sacchet abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3-2-1. Sacchet: This will go onto City Council. I think a date is already established on September 26th and we wish you luck with it. PUBLIC HEARING: . APPROVE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOTS 6 & 7. BLOCK 1. CHRISTMAS ACRES. FILE 05-02 SUBDIVISION. AND APPROVE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 860. 890 AND 910 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. FILE 05-09: APPLICANT FRANK BEDDOR. Public Present: Name Address Rob & Mary Reinsmoen Daryl Fortier 1180 Pleasant View Road 1804 Spring Valley Circle, Golden Valley Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Explain what the role of the Planning Commission is in a case like this. AI-Jaff: And that is something that I spoke to the city attorney about. As I mentioned in the staff report, Minnesota State statutes state, and this is verbatim. Shall approve a registered land survey in the manner required for approval of a subdivision plat. Which means public hearing. That's what was getting it. Sacchet: So somebody who has a problem can speak to it. Papke: So our role here is to allow public to comment on this. Someone who might have an objection to the change of the border. 12