Loading...
CC Minutes 9-29-05 City Council Meeting - September 29,2005 Councilman Lundquist: Actually probably limits development rather than allows it because you're taking away the access to provide a road through there. Todd Gerhardt: And if you look at the other map, I'm trying to figure out why we would have wanted a road that way anyway because it doesn't connect to the neighboring subdivision access points so. Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question sir? Thank you. We're still within a public hearing so if anybody else would like to come forward and address this issue, please do so at this time. Seeing nobody then without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Are there any additional questions or discussion on this matter? Any comments? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. A second? Coul).cilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution#2005-84: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve a resolution vacating the 60 foot roadway easement located along the property line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Timberwood Estates Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK, 600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 100, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PLACE A SIGN ON A CANOPY, PLANNING CASE 05-28. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a variance request for a sign on the north elevation of the Americana Bank. Our ordinance permits signage on street frontages or primary entrances to buildings. This is neither for the Americana Bank and so it's the appropriate location. This is a site plan. As you can see on the west elevation and the south elevation, which are street frontages for the development, they do have wall signage that's been approved. And in the northwest comer of the site they have a monument sign that they'll have their business name on also. Staff believes this provides adequate signage for the Americana Bank and has recommended denial. As part of the public hearing before the Planning Commission they also vote to recommend denial of the variance request. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Mr. Generous, what are the other, this is a multi tenant building. What do the other sign allowances, or what's coming forward that you're aware of? How much signage is going to be on this side of the building or throughout, around the building? 8 City Council Meeting - September 29,2005 Bob Generous: Well as you go further east there are some entrances to individual units that won't have signage and that will be based on their wall area, so we don't know what the total amount will be. Mayor Furlong: That would be on the south side of the building? Bob Generous: Well on the south side and they have entrances on the north or the east side of the building. They would be able to put a sign above their entrance to provide opportunity for people to locate them in that multi tenant development. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. And how about, it's a two story building. How about the second floor. That would be accessed from inside. Bob Generous: Well they would get a percentage of that. Well they would have signage on the street frontage of course within the sign band area. However I do have an application that will be coming forward in about a month regarding a locational issue on another tenant within the building. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the applicant here this evening? Good evening sir. Paul Punt: Good evening. My name is Paul Punt. I'm with Attracta Signs. The President of the bank couldn't be here tonight. We'd like to speak to a few of the issues. Number one, when these plans come before the Planning Commission and the council and even when the developer is developing the plan originally, it's impossible to consider every consideration that that building's going to be used for or what the tenant's needs are in that building. And for that reason there should be some flexibility and I think everybody agrees with that. Often times when a development is put forth before the city and before the Planning Commission there's a little give and take that takes place. So you end up with commercial buildings around town that have signage on them which actually does not conform to the city code. Sign codes. And that includes signs such as signs that are on non-street front facing sides of the building. Some that don't have entrances. I can cite a couple of them. Houlihan's is one. They have signs on 3 sides of the building. One faces the parking lot where the entrance is. One faces the street and the other one faces the wetland. But it is visible from Highway 5, but it's still not frontage because the lot doesn't front on Highway 5. Another one would be right next door, Culver's. They have signs on all 4 sides of the building. So there are exceptions made and I realize that some of that is in the give and take of the planning process, and a lot of these when you're, especially when you're dealing with businesses like Culver's for instance. They have a set plan that they go nation wide. They have a set plan and the signs are ready. Where you're doing a development like this, you don't know who all the tenants are going to be. You don't know ahead of time what all their needs are and you proceed along that line. Most importantly I think the city recognizes and I think Bob even mentioned that signs are allowed to be located on non-street frontage as long as there's an entrance there. And the bank's contention is that that drive thru is as important entrance to them as their front door. That's a big part ofthe business. I don't know exactly what it is but a large part of the business is done at the drive up. As is, well we've all 9 City Council Meeting - September 29,2005 done it. I mean you drive to the bank, you make a deposit. You run through the drive up. And the drive up gives them some flexibility as far as hours and that type of thing. There's many times that people can use that drive up to do their banking when the lobby's closed. So in that respect I think it is an entrance. Bob talked about one of the signs that's going to go there is a small sign that's going on the, I don't think I have a picture of it. A small sign that is going on, right next to the drive up entrance that has ATM and drive up in it, and it's got letters, about 2 inch letters on it that say Americana Bank. But the Americana Bank, Community Bank and that sets back from the road probably around 200 feet from Market Boulevard, and you know the name isn't visible. The intention of this sign was that it would be a directional sign. Given how that driveway goes in there and stuff, it could be confusing that people end up in that drive thru when it's one way around the building and when they don't belong there so that's why that sign is going in there to begin with. To begin with to show that this is the drive up entrance. It's not intended to be an identification sign for the bank. The bank also has, from their old location to the new one they have had a, at this point a net loss of about 45% of their signage, from what they had on the old building. If this drive up, or if this canopy sign were permitted they'd still be 30% behind what they had before, so they are losing considerable amount of signage. I've got a little drawing here of the site. This would be Market Boulevard down here and this would be West 78th Street. Where the number 1 is there, is the view from the street at West 78th Street. As you can see that canopy is readily visible, wherea~ no other part of that building is. Our contention is that West 78th Street would be just as much of a street frontage as Highway 5 would be to Houlihan's. Even though you're looking through a parking lot, it's still visible from that street. Picture number 2 is taken right after you turn the corner and you're heading down Market Boulevard. The end of the canopy is visible. The rest of the building is not. You wouldn't even know that that bank was there. Picture number 3, is taken about halfway down towards the entrance. Again the end of the canopy is very visible. Trees block the sign on the west side. There's a point in here between number 2 and number 3 where you can see between the trees and see the west side of the building, but you can't read the sign because you're looking at the edge of the sign. You really can't see what the sign says. Picture number 4, right at the entrance where you go right into the property. The west side sign is covered up by trees. That will only get worst as the years go on and all these pine trees grow up and mature. That west entrance won't even, that west side of the building won't even be visible from that entrance. So that location for a sign for them is very important as far as notification to the public of where they are. Signs to businesses are a very integral part of their advertising, how to reach people and the appearance that they present to people and a large part of, the national, international sign association has done some surveys and one of those indicates that about 60% of new customers that come to retail type businesses, of which a bank would be similar to that in that they are community oriented. Their customers drive by the door every day. Same as retail business, and about 60% of those new customers come because they see the location. They see the sign. That brings them to the door. The rest is, the other 40% of new customers come through advertising. You might catch somebody from White Bear Lake driving down here to bank if they've got some good deal going or something, but I doubt it. Their customers drive by the door every day and it's important to them that they're seen by those customers. I guess other than that we're just requesting that you present an open mind to our request and we're hoping that you agree with us. 10 City Council Meeting - September 29,2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for the applicant. In terms of signage, now these would be obviously permanent signs. Does the bank use any of the window panes or the painting at all or is it their anticipation that they're going to be doing that? They have been. Paul Punt: I don't think they intend to. The windows that they have are not of the size sufficient to do much window pane writing anyway. Banks normally aren't the type that do a lot of that type of thing. I know Klein Bank has something on their window. Councilman Lundquist: They did quite a bit in their old one. Paul Punt: Oh did they? Yeah, I wasn't aware of that but their windows aren't such now that they have much room for those windows. They're quite narrow windows that are on there now. Any other questions? Mayor Furlong: Other questions for the applicant? No? Thank you Mr. Punt. Paul Punt: Thank you. Mayor,Furlong: Any follow up questions for staff? I believe tl;1e public hearing occurred at the Planning Commission on this item so is there anybody that wishes to provide public comment for items that are new or different from the Planning Commission? If not, no. Then I'll bring it council.. . some questions. Sure. Councilman Peterson: Bob what did we end up doing at Community Bank, for the newest bank in town. Since we have to be parity with banks but it would seem reasonable. Bob Generous: Their issue was, they're part of a PUD with Village on the Ponds and so they allowed signage on all the sides of their building but they had a height restriction so they got a variance for that so they could be up higher on the building. There was a limitation of a 20 foot height for the sign. Councilman Peterson: Their logo was up there. Bob Generous: Yeah, and then they got the logo up on the tower and then the sign itself on the south elevation is up above 20 feet so. Mayor Furlong: But I think you said something too for clarification, excuse me Councilman Peterson, that the Village on the Ponds, the PUD had. Bob Generous: Specific standards for the signage. Mayor Furlong: That are different than our ordinances. Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright, excuse me. Councilman Peterson, other questions? 11 City Council Meeting - September 29,2005 Councilman Peterson: That was it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one more question. Bob, when this originally came to the Planning Commission a couple years, I think I was on it. Whenever the plan came through. Was this, this was then going to be a bank? Was their drive thru in the original plans? Bob Generous: Yeah, I believe so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And there was not a sign or anything on it? Bob Generous: No. They were just looking at a sign band and we developed a standard for allowing street frontage of course and then we just, last year amended the ordinance to permit signage for entrances to the buildings. Mayor Furlong: I can assure you there was a bank in the plans when that came through. Other questions? Councilman Lundquist? Councilman Labatt? Councilman Lab~tt: No. Mayor Furlong: I looked the right way this evening, so that's good. Okay, very good. Let's bring it back to council for discussion then. Thoughts and comments. Councilman Lundquist: Alright, I'll take the first one. Interesting as we talked about give and take on this particular building was a lot in the design. The bank was in there, in the original designs. Signage opportunities were plenty there. You can make an argument either way I think Mr. Punt as your arguments are that drive thru obviously is important to a bank but you've got to go in the front door to sign up for an account before you can use the drive thru and I would contend that you're not going to get a lot of people that are driving one way on Market Boulevard that aren't going to turn around 8 hours later or less and drive the other way on Market Boulevard as well. However that being said, it's in a downtown business district. It's non lighted. I don't think there's a lot of offense going to be given to it, and you know like I said I'd be inclined to allow the signage for that. I don't think there's a lot of other businesses along there that have entrances in the back that are going to want people to come there anyway so, with the exception of the bank so I think that it's a reasonable use. I'm not sure that you're going to elevate the level of customers that are going to come running in the front door. Maybe I'm wrong but again since it's in a neighborhood business district I'm inclined to allow. Let it go. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I tend to agree with Mr. Lundquist. You know I went back and forth. I think the deciding thing for me is that they're not asking to illuminate it so it's just going to be a day time sign that you'll be able to see. So I'm fine with allowing the variance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. 12 City Council Meeting - September 29,2005 Councilman Peterson: I don't know, I'd probably support staff's position. I've been pretty conservative on granting variances to signs in the past and I think this one doesn't, it doesn't really present anything that's a new opportunity that the bank is missing by not having it there. To your point Brian I think that it's just adding more signage for the bank, not for the drive thru. I think the drive thru itself, you can see what it is. So to that end I think we've got the ordinance there to limit the exposure of signs now and with that I'd support staff's position that with the... on two sides and a monument sign that's enough. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I do agree with Councilman Peterson, especially since, when the original plans came through Planning Commission and City Council the sign wasn't there to start with. You know saying that we made exceptions for Houlihan's and Culver's, they're distinct buildings all on their own where this is kind of attached to several different other buildings and there was a certain theme and certain design and layout this building was supposed to have and I just, I think that if we allow this, how can we, for the next client or whoever's going to lease the space in this building comes to and wants something done for them, I couldn't say no to them so I have to agree with Councilman Peterson and staff's position. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson: You like deciding issues in this building don't you? Mayor Furlong: I'll tell you what. What the four of you just described were all, I mean it's the choice of two rights here. Helping businesses advertise their location, which we try to do as a city. And then follow our ordinances and put ordinances in place that we believe are fair for everybody. That's the challenge. I think in this situation the dilemma here for us is to figure out which right to choose, and a lot of the issues have been named. They do have in the staff report I think spells out were there other opportunities. One ofthe questions I had too was, what's coming down the road? What are the additional signage on this building? And when this did come through site plan obviously there were some signs included I believe but perhaps not with the prevalence that this may end up given other businesses locating there. My sense here is, you know it's a case by case basis when you're looking at this and trying to be fair and just. It's not lit, which is helpful but I think it does, it does add more sign age to the building. Takes away some of the architectural features that we were sold upon when the site plan was approved. And not knowing what's coming down the road, if we start with a variance now, to Councilwoman Tjornhom's point, it may limit our ability to make decisions in the future as well. So I guess my sense would be at this point, would be to not support it at this time. In part because I recognize that this is a sign that the company already owns. It came off their building, and I guess I'd be inclined to wait and see how the building and how the tenants fill out. What other sign requests we have and then if indeed it doesn't become over burdened with signs, yeah perhaps we might reconsider in the future as well, but at this point I'm going to side with staff and support our ordinance. Not because I'm going against businesses but because this building is still in process in terms of the tenants filling it out and what I think the sign requests are going to be. But to the end, after it's filled out, and if it's something that we want to look at again in the future, I 13 City Council Meeting - September 29,2005 certainly would consider that as well. So any other thoughts or comments based upon what people have heard? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: I'd move to approve the denial as presented by staff in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Based on the findings of fact? Roger Knutson: Yes, and adopting the findings of the Planning Commission as your findings. Councilman Peterson: You know I don't say that just so you have something to say during the meeting. Roger Knutson: I'd be really bored if you didn't give me at least a little opportunity tonight. Councilman Peterson: That's fine. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Council!"oman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council denies Variance #05-28 for a request for relief from the city's 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 a hardship to warrant a variance. 2. The applicant has adequate signage. All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. HARVIEUX SUBDIVISION, 6605 HORSESHOE CURVE, RONALD HARVIEUX: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLA T APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2, BLOCK 1, SATHRE ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS WITH VARIANCES, PLANNING CASE 05-26. Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a request for preliminary and final plat approval. There is a variance request for the use of flag lots to, as creating two of the lots. The applicant has prepared revisions to the plat to correspond with some of the issues that we had. Specifically this flag lot is required to be 30 feet in width and so they've amended this plan to show that. In doing that they've had to revise lots 1 and 2. They did follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and maintained the existing east/west line between Lots 1 and 2, and instead extending the lot to the south. Again the variances for the 14