PC 2005 10 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, and Jerry
McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dan Keefe and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson
Morris, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE
COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE. APPLICANT, CLINT &
JENNIFER HURT, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-32.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vern Lindemann 552 Mission Hills Drive
Clint & Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle
Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks. Questions from staff. Any questions? Not at this time? Alright, do we have
an applicant here? If you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and
why don’t you tell us a little bit of what’s going on here from your point of view. And you may
want to take that microphone in front of you.
Jennifer Hurt: I’ll take it all the way down here. I’m used to that. Well first of all we want to
thank you for listening to our request. We want you to know that obviously we’re in a little bit
of a bind.
Sacchet: So you are Clint and Jennifer Hurt.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, I’m Jennifer Hurt. This is Clint Hurt.
Sacchet: Just to be clear, thank you.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, sorry forgot. Anyhow we now know that our Sport Court, which was built
in May of 2005 is not in compliance with city code. When we hired our contractor back in May
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
of 2005 he assured us that he would be taking care of everything for us, including checking in
with you to make sure that we were in compliance with the city. We felt confident that the work
would be done in accordance with the city but we were let down. We want you to know that we
would have never built the Sport Court had we known this would be in violation of city code, but
now we have to deal with the fact that we have a court that is way too big and that’s why we’re
applying for this variance. So what we’re requesting is a 4.4% hard surface coverage variance
and also a 5 foot side yard setback variance. We plan to remove 8 feet off of the south side of
the Sport Court, which is 320 square feet total. We will also remove a concrete slab that we had
planned on putting a shed, which is 120 square feet and we will also be removing 128 ½ total
square feet of retaining wall. So we have 16 letters from neighbors who support us and have
benefited from our Sport Court as part of our neighborhood. Several children in our
neighborhood have also used the Sport Court. We take comfort in knowing that our children are
in our back yard rather than a mile away or still playing in a park. While the parks are fun to
visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh Lake, which is accessible via walking trail but it’s
approximately a mile away. And we also have Lake Susan Park which is the park we visit
frequently but we have to cross over Highway 101 and in the very near future here we know that
Highway 101 is not going to be a safe thing to cross. So, let’s see our intent of installing the
Sport Court was not to increase the value of our home but rather provide a safe place for children
to play close to our house.
Clint Hurt: My wife being short I’ve got to always lift things up. We’ve also, my name is Clint
Hurt. We also went over to the town houses and actually I talked with several of the people right
in the existing that actually overlook our Sport Court, and by going with them you know we also,
we’re showing a willingness to take care of that, the setback, or the 8 foot. Cutting off the 8 off
the back would actually you know take the town houses and put everything on that back side. In
doing, talking so I did talk with two of the board members. I also talked with several of the
occupants there that a lot of them were just saying why can’t you just leave it all in you know,
it’s for the kids. There’s nothing better than to hear children laughing. It’s also nice to see the
kids playing somewhere not in the streets, and being a nurse I take care of kids you know and it’s
stuff that we don’t like to see happen when kids get hit by cars. This is exactly how we feel. We
absolutely love our Sport Court and we love seeing the kids play back there. It takes them off
the streets and puts them in a safe area. By also taking off that 8 feet off the back, we’re actually
making it so we aren’t able to play tennis anymore, which we already were able to do, so now
what we actually can do is, we can actually play 3 on 3 basketball without crowding each other.
We can Rollerblade on it with you know several kids on it. We can play volleyball. We can
play badminton. We can ice skate on it with the kids in the wintertime too. Keeping kids off the
streets is our main thing. We feel by cutting the Sport Court down to the allotted size that it says,
we wouldn’t be able to have as much fun on it and also we wouldn’t be able to allow as many
kids on the Sport Court at one time to keep that safe also. So please consider our request.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicants? Alright, yep go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: I’ve got one. One of the things I read through here was, I guess you’re real reluctant
to want to, either to take it out or cut it down but what harm would it do to cut down the size of it
so it is in compliance. I mean you’ve got quite a bit area there and even if you were to cut down
2
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
a little bit more, there’s still more than enough area to play basketball on and those types of
things.
Clint Hurt: If we cut it down to the size that it’s, what it is. Wouldn’t have a, wouldn’t be able
to play volleyball. Wouldn’t be able to ice skate. Wouldn’t be able to Rollerblade. Keep the
kids off the you know streets.
Jennifer Hurt: I think in addition it’s, you know it’s somewhat of a financial burden for us. I
mean we invested this money and put this into a Sport Court. Now we have to take it out. I
mean I understand that there are certain rules and regulations and we did break those rules and
again it’s not something that we intended to do. You know like I said if we had, going all back
before this all started we would have never considered something like that but now we are stuck
in the situation and it would be a bit of a financial burden. I mean it’s already cutting, we’re
cutting off a decent chunk at the end of it so that we’re in compliance with the easement on the
townhouse side. On the south side of our court. And if we are to cut as much as we are
supposed to cut so that we can reach that 25% hard surface coverage, we’re cutting our court in a
little bit less than half of what it is.
McDonald: Okay, let me ask you a question about the contractor. When he put this together
were there guarantees that he was going to take care of all the permits and had he dealt with the
city before?
Clint Hurt: …times to make sure that he was going to talk with the council or whoever it was
here to check with any zoning or regulations or rules that we’d actually have to go through and
he said that he’d take care of everything for us.
McDonald: Okay, have you talked to him about any of the costs if you have to comply with the
ordinance?
Clint Hurt: We will have to do that yes. We have talked with him and he’s willing to work with
us but it’s.
Jennifer Hurt: It’s still going to be, we’ve invested the money and I don’t think we’re getting it
back.
Sacchet: So at least it won’t cost you more to change it.
Jennifer Hurt: It won’t cost us more but it sure wouldn’t have cost us so much to begin with.
Sacchet: It wouldn’t have cost you so much in the first place.
Jennifer Hurt: Right, because we pay by square footage.
Sacchet: Any other questions Jerry?
McDonald: No.
3
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Sacchet: Actually I’d like to add on that a little bit. I mean are there any other possibilities to
reduce this hard cover?
Jennifer Hurt: Well I guess if there are suggestions from you we’d certainly would consider that
and.
Papke: Have you considered making a level grass area? Some people do play tennis on grass
courts for instance which would be permeable.
Jennifer Hurt: Okay, we haven’t thought of that.
Metzer: There’s some patio area they could possibly…some sidewalk area up front. That’d be
an option for me to, obviously some is still going to have to be removed from the Sport Court to
comply but.
Sacchet: It’s a pretty sizeable driveway. Almost 1,500 square feet and then there’s the walk
through porch. Maybe some of that could be made impervious.
Jennifer Hurt: Take off the driveway?
Sacchet: Well you need a driveway.
Jennifer Hurt: Well, not really.
Clint Hurt: Just got to shorten it up.
Larson: Or narrow it.
Jennifer Hurt: Narrow it.
Sacchet: And where do you need the side yard variance? Is that to the.
Jennifer Hurt: It appears as though we have the.
Metzer: That’d be the side.
Jennifer Hurt: Right.
Sacchet: So with what you take out to the, I guess that’s to the south. There you wouldn’t need
it on the south side but you would need it on the west side.
Jennifer Hurt: And on the south side we’re complying with the south side. It’s the west side that
we are asking for a variance as well.
Larson: Is that a 3 car garage you have?
4
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: Yes.
Larson: What if you were to make it closer to 2 car? Well, it kind of looks like it already is but,
you could make it quite narrow and then just at the very end scoot it over so you can get, you
know you could park in front of it if you needed to or whatever but. We’d like to work with you
on this.
Jennifer Hurt: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Sacchet: It looks like you have huge support from all the neighbors.
Jennifer Hurt: We do.
Sacchet: Did any of the neighbors have any reservations?
Jennifer Hurt: Reservations? No. Not that we’re aware of.
Sacchet: It seems like everybody is just.
Jennifer Hurt: Well we love it. I mean we.
Clint Hurt: …the retaining wall and everybody loves the boulder wall on one side.
Sacchet: Now you’re talking about taking out the retaining walls, most of them. What impacts
will that have on your?
Clint Hurt: On one side we actually have to come in with a grader. Hire a grading contractor
and actually be sloped off.
Sacchet: So you have to slope it a little bit, yeah.
Jennifer Hurt: But we met with Dan Remer, the city engineer when we met with Josh and we
talked about that and…
Sacchet: It can be sloped and…
Jennifer Hurt: …when it was originally and he said that would be fine. We didn’t finish it.
When we moved into this house 2 years ago it was obviously already built. There was a
previous owner there and she never finished off that back part so that was ideal to us because we
had plans of either putting a pool or a Sport Court back there so we thought well great, we don’t
have to rip up a bunch of sod and you know whatever else would have been back there.
Landscaping.
Clint Hurt: And I mean there was a lot of, I mean weeds and stuff like that so it’s taking control
over really our back yard.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: Our neighbors are thrilled to see that it’s better than weeds that’s back there.
Larson: It’s beautiful. I mean there’s no doubt that it’s really.
Undestad: Is there, Josh is there, you back up to some townhomes and I noticed one of the
letters in here was from the neighboring association or something. Is there other, I mean is there
common areas out there in the townhomes or in that neighborhood that could be offset or
mitigated somehow with hard surface?
Metzer: We, you know we can’t do a hard surface easement. I don’t think we do that. I guess it
would have to come down to a sale of property to pick up land with the homeowners association.
Al-Jaff: Mission Hills has a totlot. That’s part of the homeowners association for Mission Hills.
Not part of.
Undestad: So there isn’t really any outlots or anything that they’d have an opportunity to buy a
piece of.
Al-Jaff: I can’t think of any.
Jennifer Hurt: To make up for extra land so it comes down our hard surface coverage.
Sacchet: And you said the contractor is not really willing to give anything back.
Jennifer Hurt: The contractor is willing to.
Sacchet: But he’s willing to help you at least not incur more costs.
Jennifer Hurt: Well he’ll take it out for us, you know.
Clint Hurt: He won’t be refunding anything.
Jennifer Hurt: He’s not going to be refunding any money to us and we’ve paid 90% of it.
Sacchet: I mean he did assure you that he would check and he’s.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, and he’s well aware of the fact that he did assure us of that.
Sacchet: You’d have to have some leverage there.
Jennifer Hurt: We do.
Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Alright.
Jennifer Hurt: Thank you.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Sacchet: This is a public hearing. I’d like to open that. If anybody wants to comment, please
come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say.
Vern Lindemann: Good evening. I’m Vern Lindemann. I’m the President of Mission Hills
Garden Homes Association. The commons property that abuts the property in question here, and
let me give you a little background here. I don’t know who’s planning was involved in this Sport
Court or whatever the situation was but there wasn’t a lot of thought given to the neighborhood
impact when that was put in. No one talked to any of us ahead of time as to what we would
think about it. The Sport Court is very, very close to two bedroom windows of two of our
townhomes. As a matter of fact one of the residents has since sold because she could not put up
with the noise of the banging, of tennis balls of the Sport Court. He echo’s up the hill. It is very
noisy. I live and I realize this isn’t a noise issue but it is an issue of planning. When they put in
that court, they were running cement trucks on our private streets. We are a townhome
association. We own all the streets. We own all the utilities in our association. Cement trucks
were running down our streets. I had to actually kick them out and tell them they had to use the
city streets because of the weight restriction on our streets. No one asked us about that. And
we’re kind of thinking this is one of those situations where some people think it’s better to ask
for forgiveness than permission. And I heard the folks before me say that all the neighbors are in
favor of it. That is absolutely not true. The two townhome owners that are closest to the court
are definitely not in favor of it. They talked to board members, myself included. We refused to
sign the petition. I brought it to the townhome board and I’d like to have you, I’d like to read a
letter from the townhome board to the city. I believe you have a copy of that. It has come to the
attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the property owners
recreational improvement at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota is in violation of
city codes. The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing the
residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain support for allowing a
variance to the city code. The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wish to make it a
matter of record with the City of Chanhassen planning department that the property bordering on
the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on the property owned by Mission Hills
Garden Homes Association. While the border in question is closest to 520 and 528 Mission Hills
Drive, it is the Board’s position that any request for variance should be addressed to the Mission
Hills Garden Homes Association and not to individual residents. It is also the position of the
Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the City of Chanhassen not allow the
property owner at 8491 Mission Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on
property at Mission Hills Garden Homes. I think the City, my personal view is, I think the City
of Chanhassen has done a phenomenal job in the planning and building of the community. I
think it would be a mistake to give a variance to deviations from code after the fact rather than
having somebody apply before they put it in. Now I don’t know who’s fault it was, the
contractor’s or the homeowners, okay. I as a homeowner know that if I put something in, if I’m
going to do some improvement to my property, common sense tells me that I check with the city
and make sure that the contractor, because I as a homeowner I believe have the ultimate
responsibility for adhering to codes. The contractor does not, okay. And so I just think it’s, we
run into this. Mission Hills Garden Homes, we’re a microcosm of the City of Chanhassen. Our
Board of Directors is like City Council and the whole thing. We run into this all the time.
Where somebody does something and then wants a variance or permission and we have found
7
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
that every time we do that we get bit in the back end down the line by somebody who’s, we have
a person right now that’s saying, if you don’t let me do what everybody else has done, I’m going
to sue you for discrimination. Okay. So when you back off from good codes and you allow
variances because of poor planning in advance, I think it is a mistake and I think the variance
should be denied.
Sacchet: I’ve got a question. The townhomes you’re talking about are directly adjacent to the
south?
Vern Lindemann: I’m sorry.
Sacchet: The townhomes you’re representing are directly to the south.
Vern Lindemann: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Just want to be clear.
Vern Lindemann: And our commons property abuts that property.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay.
Vern Lindemann: And the individual homeowners in Mission Hills Garden Homes do not have,
the individual homeowners do not have control of their property. As commons property and any
individual homeowner other than noise and nuisance or any other, really does not have unless
they come to our board and present their case. I don’t believe they have standing in suggesting a
variance on our property line.
Sacchet: Alright. I think you made yourself pretty understood. Thank you very much.
Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address
for the record. Let us know what you have to say.
Jane Zureich: Hi. My name is Jane Zureich and I live at 8490 Mission Hills Circle so I am Jen
and Clint’s next door neighbor and I am the property that will be directly affected by this
variance.
Sacchet: So you’re to the west?
Jane Zureich: I’m directly to the west. It’s a shared property line that the variance would be the
requested on. Once they fix the easement issue takes that back 8 feet off and are in compliance
with the 8 feet on the south side, it is the east side of their property line only that would be
requesting the variance. That is my property line. When we first moved into that property in
2002, as Jen and Clint mentioned, it was not, they had done nothing to the property. They had
brought the sod up not even to where their Sport Court starts now and it, when Clint says it was
weeds, in the summer it was waist high weeds. I could lose my 3 year old in the waist high
weeds. Jen and Clint immediately upon moving in, Clint mowed the lawn. I would say, I don’t
know, 100-200 mice came out of that property. So the fact that they have done this to this is an
8
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
immense improvement on that property from where it was before. You can’t even compare it to
where it was before. They could have I guess chosen to sod the land, but it’s an unusual property
in that it’s very deep. Both of our yards are very deep. Their’s is even deeper than our’s are, so
to have it sodded, yes that was probably an option but it’s a unique piece of property that really
lends itself very well to this Sport Court. I mean it really lends itself well to having something
there for you to use. So I’m kind of in, we absolutely, we’ve taken full advantage. They are
very, very open and welcoming with using the Sport Court. I mean we’ve used it quite a bit this
summer, along with a lot of our other neighbors. We have a 3 year old and a 5 year old and I’d
much rather see my 3 year old and 5 year old out in the back playing basketball, trying to play
basketball, than out in the street and things like that. I mean we do live in a cul-de-sac but we
have no sidewalks in the cul-de-sac. You know it’s gotten to the point where I send my kids,
because we don’t have sidewalks and I’m like, go play in the street and then I’m, what am I
saying? Telling the kids to go play in the street. Go play in their yard. Much better. So you
know to say, and the issue about asking about them to reduce it in size, I do think taking the back
8 feet off is going to be, that’s a manageable reduction in size. I do think if they have to cut it in
half, it’s really not going to be, they’re not going to be able to use it to the full effect. Or really
to that great of an effect. We’re the ones where the retaining wall right now butts up to our
property line. As soon as they remove that from there and then grade it so that it’s a slope, it’s
not going to even be, it’s going to be at least 4 or 5 feet away from our property line, which we
were even happy with the rock wall because as I said, anything was an improvement over what
was there before. I don’t feel, I agree that everything in a perfect world and everything would
have gone a, b, c, d and they would have had the variance beforehand and had all the permits that
they were supposed to have, that would have been obviously the optimal solution. I don’t feel
like you’re setting a precedence because as I mentioned, this is a unique piece of property. Who
else has the amount of space that they have to even put something like this on their property?
But even beyond that, even beyond because there are properties in Chan who do have that kind
of space. It is a unique property that I don’t feel that people are out there going, clamoring for
Sport Courts and this is going to set a unusual, awkward precedence. I think that if they have to
take it out, it’s going to make it a very, almost funny looking piece of, I’d rather have a full Sport
Court as my next door neighbor trying to sell my house, even to somebody who doesn’t have
kids, then I would to have a funny cut up thing. Right now it’s a beautiful Sport Court. I mean
as you see in the pictures, it’s beautiful. So it’s, do I think it’s going to affect my property value?
Absolutely not. Never. I don’t think it’s going to have any negative impact on my property.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Jane Zureich: Sure.
Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I’m closing the
public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion or comments. Kurt, you ready?
Papke: I’ll get the ball rolling. Couple points. First of all in terms of precedence setting. I
st
noticed that on our November 1 meeting we have two cases for hard surface coverage
variances, one of which is after the fact, so to have those two follow immediately on the heels of
this one I think is a tough spot. So I’m very sensitive to that precedent setting issue. I’m also
concerned with the environmental sensitivity to the area. This is very close to Lake Susan. Very
9
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
close to the creek and I think we have to be cautious of variance in environmentally sensitive
areas. The, my real concern is I think the applicants have come into this with the best of
intentions, and I’m starting to question whether our zoning compliance process that we put into
place, what was it 2 years ago? When, Sharmeen do you know when we started doing this?
Al-Jaff: It was about 2 years ago.
Papke: I’m questioning whether it’s working because you know we’re starting to get some
issues here that seem like people aren’t getting the message somehow properly. I don’t know if
it’s confusing people. People come in and say well do I need a building permit? No, you don’t
need a building permit so I think maybe they’re leaving saying well, I’m good to go. But there’s
this zoning compliance thing that we’re not, it was intended to catch exactly these situations and
it doesn’t so regardless of the outcome tonight, I think we need to take a serious look at that and
see, what can we do because I think they have the best of intentions it sounds like. A good
number of the neighbors are in support of this but because of all the issues, I’m not in favor of
approving this.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Jerry, you want to jump in?
McDonald: Yeah. First of all I did go out and I did check out the Sport Court and looked at it
and I have to admit that you’ve done quite a bit with your back yard. Yeah, it probably is a fun
place for kids to play and all of that. The problem we get into, you talk about precedence. If we
do this, there is another case within your same neighborhood that we turned down oh about 4-5
weeks ago and it was, it wasn’t a Sport Court but it was patios. So this will set a precedence and
it will set a precedence throughout the entire city. And before I came onto this I have to admit I
would have probably been more in favor of this because I am a person that believes in, it’s your
property. You should be able to do with it as you please. However what I have come to learn
over the past 6 months, and I’ll deviate a little bit. I got involved in, out in Woodbury a week
and a half ago. They had a serious flood out there and part of the problem was the City of
Woodbury. There were 3 systems that failed. The particular client that I ended up talking to
swamped out his basement all the way up to the top step. Total basement was wiped out. The
reason why was because of a non-compliance with zoning laws. A drainage ditch had been
covered up. Created a dam. Construction was going on. Debris flowed over into the main
culvert and it just continued to cascade from there. The people of Woodbury were going after
the City of Woodbury. They wanted a redress for all of this. They were blaming the city and the
city may or may not have some liability. That’s something that would be determined if we ended
up going to court. But the point of what that begins to show me is that it’s very important, these
zoning requirements are there for a reason. Especially whenever we talk about water, ponding,
drainage ditches, they’re all there. Everything is designed for a reason. Your back yard is
basically a bowl. If it were to flood, and I went out there and looked at it and tried to see where
the drainage patterns go and…it’s going to go right into her back yard. That’s going to go right
into her house.
Jane Zureich: Actually it’s been better since the Sport Court went in. We’ve had less of a wet
back yard since it went in than we did before. It changed, we actually have better drainage now.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
McDonald: Well that, I’ll agree with you to a point but the thing is, I’ve seen it happen and we
just haven’t had the kind of flooding that could occur, and once that happens, the first place
you’re going to come is you’re going to come after the City because why didn’t we enforce
something. Or you’re going to go after your neighbors and you’re going to want to sue them for
creating a problem. The point is, is that these are put there for a reason and it’s not so much to
impede upon your use of your property. Your property is just one of many pieces that connect to
form a subdivision or a group of homes where people live. What you do on your property can
affect others, 2, 3, 4 houses away. Sometimes blocks away so there is a reason for this. I do
share the concern that you’re the second one I’ve dealt with. Contractor said they were going to
take care of everything and nothing was done. I’m a little concerned that our zoning compliance
isn’t working. I share your concern there. Something should be done because to find these
things after the fact, we are now going to impose a great burden upon the homeowner. Not only
do you lose the benefit of what you thought you had, but you may incur additional costs in the
process of complying with the zoning codes. Is that fair to you? No. I’ll be the first one to say
it’s not. But unfortunately you are ultimately responsible for compliance with zoning codes.
Anything with the contractor is a separate issue. It’s not the City’s job to go after these
contractors. I mean based upon all of that and the fact that I feel very strongly about the issue of
precedence and also about the issue of water flow and drainage and ponding and all of this, I
cannot support this. What I would suggest is, and I know in the other case they have worked
with staff to try to come up with solutions. There are a number of things that you can do. We’re
not asking you to give up your driveway, but there are other things you can do to your driveway.
You can make it a porous surface. There are other things to do. It comes down to how bad do
you want the Sport Court and what are you willing to do to offset it. Any offset to keep the Sport
Court, my suggestion would be your contractor should pay for it. But that’s between you and
your contractor. I do believe that we have to enforce this hard coverage surface code and
because of that I could not support it.
Sacchet: Give it a shot?
Undestad: Just have a question. Again I agree with everything you’re saying here. The zoning
ordinances are put in place for this but just a question. What if 2 or 3 or 4 neighbors all wanted
to get together and put in a Sport Court in one location?
Al-Jaff: If they meet requirements.
Undestad: So it would still come down to that lot that.
Metzer: It has to be on one lot and has to meet side yard, rear yard setbacks. And they’d better
pick a neighbor that has the least amount of hard cover to begin with.
Undestad: That’s all I have.
Al-Jaff: Typically we see these type of sites with planned unit developments or as a townhome
or subdivision comes in. Ashling Meadows is a good example. They have a swimming pool.
They have, I think there is a Sport Court out there, so the developer plans it in advance.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Undestad: One more. The boulder wall over in the west property line, that’s affecting the
drainage right now? That’s in that drainage easement? That’s why that boulder wall would
have to come out, is that it?
Metzer: This is the west property line here. Outlined in black.
Larson: Is that considered an improvement? In rocks.
Metzer: I’m not aware what the drainage was beforehand. Well I don’t know, apparently Dan
was okay with the removal of that lawn and berming.
Sacchet: I mean that does bring an interesting aspect. I mean the contractor having slipped with
the hard coverage is one thing but putting a retaining wall on the property line, I mean he didn’t
care a bit about any regulations. I mean everybody knows that we have setback requirements for
something we build. I mean something is definitely way off. Do you have anything else to add?
Larson: Yeah, I just, like I say it’s a lovely Sport Court but like Jerry had mentioned, these 20
year, or 100 year rain events that we’re getting, I’ve been in my home over 20 years. Never had
flooding and all of a sudden this year we’re having flooding and so your homes, your
neighborhood is quite a lot newer than where I live but who’s to say at some point this is going
to happen. You know where it’s all going to, I don’t know if it’s the settling or if it’s things fill
up or whatever but the environmental impact eventually may catch up to you. I personally
would like to see maybe if you can work with the city and see if you really want to keep this, you
know comply with what you said you would do on the Sport Court but then also see what else
you can maybe thin down your driveway or something and get it into that 25%. There are
options and maybe you can just look at some of those.
Jennifer Hurt: Okay so you’re saying though that if we take off, if we don’t take off in the back
but we take off in the front of it, that’s going to somehow affect the flooding issues? That
doesn’t make sense to me.
Larson: The whole purpose of having this coverage on your property is how much water will
actually go into the ground versus running off and going elsewhere and that’s where the issue
comes in and a lot of people don’t quite understand why that is but it really affects an entire
neighborhood. It affects the lakes, the ponds and everything. And so that’s why that
requirement is put in there because it’s really to protect you and to protect your neighbors.
Vern Lindemann: Could I make a comment here?
Sacchet: If it’s real brief because we’re really beyond comments here.
Vern Lindemann: Oh okay then. That’s okay. I was going to…drainage in the last heavy rain
we had, we had rivers running down into the drainage pond down there and a lot of the neighbors
rocks formed up…
Sacchet: Yeah, let’s keep the discussion up here at this point, if that’s alright.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Larson: So that’s all I had.
Sacchet: You know it’s an interesting situation. On one hand I’d like to be the good guy but
that’s not our role here. As a Planning Commission, as I stated in my opening remarks, our task
is to look at to what extent do the issues that are brought before the city comply with ordinance
and regulations. And when it comes to variances, we have a very clear set of standards that we
are to apply. The first one is does it cause a hardship? And that’s not a very fluffy type of
definition of hardship. It’s very clearly defined in the city code that a hardship means if you
cannot use the property in the way that property’s in the surrounding 500 or so feet are being
used, which in this case is to have a single family residence with at least a 2 car garage and you
have that. The addition of Sport Court is not a hardship. Then we have to look at, is it
applicable to other properties? The precedence thing which we heard several commissioners
already express concern, and it is a very big concern because we’ve come across this hard
coverage situation on a regular basis. It comes up a couple times a year at least. And it’s hard
when it’s after the fact. It does set a precedent and from our position at the commission, our aim
has to be to treat everybody the same. If we give him one, then we have to give another two, and
as Kurt you pointed out, we’re going to have similar cases come in front of us within a few
weeks, so that has to have some weight. Does another aspect that we have to look at, does it
increase the property value? Now obviously you didn’t do it for that purpose but the fact is it
does increase it. It’s a nice amenity to have. And then a very important thing that we also have
to look at is it self created. Is it self created? And that’s really a sticky thing because if we do
something and we don’t know the consequences, does that mean it’s not self created? You know
it’s a little bit like if we don’t know that the red light at the light on the street means we have to
stop and we go across and we get hit, it doesn’t mean we didn’t self create it, and that’s tricky. I
mean not knowing about something doesn’t take that out, that it’s self created. And then another
aspect, is it detrimental to public welfare? And as the discussion as we just had about the
impervious limitation is very directly linked with the public welfare, so if you look at these
things, then the last point that we have to look out is does it impair adequate light and the
adjacent properties, which it doesn’t. But if we look at this list of criteria that by ordinance
we’re supposed to look at, you’re really only coming out alright on one of them, and all the
others ones you come at best questionable. Or not good at all so if we go by the letter of the law,
we really don’t have a choice. We have to deny this. However, I do want to point out that you
can bring this in front of City Council and City Council does have the leeway to go beyond just
the letter of the law. In this group here we have a little bit of leeway but not quite that much. So
that is a little bit another aspect here to look at. Let me see whether I have something else there.
I would be willing to support the side yard setback variance based on the immediately neighbor
not having an issue with it, and that does not quite have the same weight. But with impervious, I
really feel very clear that I cannot support that. However, you have options to work around that.
You could reduce the impervious surface in your driveway. Maybe you could do something with
your walkways or patio type of things. Not get rid of them but make them permeable. I mean
there are ways to do it so I think there are alternatives that you could explore that you find a
balance and also we do have to also acknowledge the neighborhood association making a pretty
strong point that not everybody is in support of it. As a matter of fact there have been some
people that have an issue with the noise level, which I can understand. I mean you have kids.
You like to hear them out there having fun and there’s somebody in the condo next door that
13
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
their kids are grown or never had kids or what and they want the quiet. So you know, it’s just
life in the neighborhood. But I think I talked enough. If anybody wants to add anything further
or we can make a motion.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a
4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction
and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single
Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following. Number 1. The
applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use
of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient
impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.
McDonald: I second Mr. Chairman.
Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32
for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage
restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot
zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to
comply with ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: And I do want to encourage you to bring this to City Council. In addition I would
encourage you to before you go to City Council, explore what options do you have that you
could mitigate the impervious surface, particularly further and then you’ll see where you get with
that.
Clint Hurt: I have a question.
Sacchet: Yes.
Clint Hurt: Taking care of that variance in the back, that 8 foot setback, does that take the
townhouses really out of the process situation?
Sacchet: No it doesn’t. I’m not really an expert to answer that but.
Clint Hurt: I’m just asking the question because there is no, we’re not, it’s not about the noise
ordinance. It’s not…the amount of people on the yard at a certain time so…complain about after
that?
14
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: Even if we cut the sport court in half it’s still going to be a sport court…
Sacchet: Yeah, I would have to refer, I mean you’d have to take up discussion like that with
staff. I mean we’re not in a position here to counsel you on that. It’s, I mean as you well know
with complaining, everybody’s allowed to complain and that’s the purpose of the public hearing
so that everybody can come and make their statement and we try to listen to everybody to the
best of our abilities to try to make everybody happy. But that’s only possible to a certain extent,
and I would encourage you to discuss this further with staff as to how can you reduce the
infringement or maybe eliminate it ideally and if there’s some type of variance you need, you
can appeal our decision to City Council. Or alternatively if the situation gets enough changed,
you may want to start a new variance process, but that’s something you have to discuss with
staff. I mean that’s where you have to go with that, okay? Wish you luck.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SPALON MONTAGE TO PLACE
A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE OF THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 600 MARKET STREET, APPLICANT KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY
COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-33.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cindy McDonald Kraus-Anderson Realty
Mitchell Wherley 600 Market Street
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead.
McDonald: I have some questions for you. Okay, currently Americana Bank has got a gable
sign and I read in here that the developer did that in the beginning. That was part of the
negotiations. As far as building the building. Is that correct?
Metzer: That’s correct. If you were to zoom in right here. This is on page, well it’s one of the
attachments to the report.
McDonald: Well the question I’ve got then, why wouldn’t we allow signage in the gables? Was
the plan from the beginning that there would be signage there and we gave in for some reason
when the developer first came through?
Metzer: Well I guess we consider this a change to what was approved. If you notice on the
north elevation, actually you can see it on the west or the north elevation, there was no provision
for a sign on the second level. Only on the south elevation with the bank. I guess it was felt to
go outside of that would be over stepping our authority.
15
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
McDonald: Well when the office building was first built, what was the intent on the second floor
then? What was going to be going up there? That wouldn’t require signage.
Metzer: I don’t believe it was known as any specific tenants. I believe it was thought that all
tenants would have, whether it’s first level or second level, would have signage on the first level
sign band.
McDonald: Okay, so the original intent was the first level was always pretty much going to be
retail space and the feeling was that that second level space there would be sufficient for signage.
We wouldn’t have to elevate things up and have a signage kind of in a big see saw pattern going
across the building. That there would be some uniformity. Was that the intent I guess to try to
control that a little bit?
Metzer: As far as I know, yes.
McDonald: Okay. And I’ll save the other questions for the applicant. I’m done.
Papke: Couple questions. This is the same building that we denied the sign variance for
Americana a couple weeks ago?
Metzer: On the north elevation canopy, yes.
Papke: Okay. What are the alternatives for Spalon Montage? Where else could they put a sign?
Could they put one in the sign band on the first floor? Next to the Bebi, however that’s
pronounced.
Metzer: It’s actually pronounced Bebi, but yeah.
Papke: Bebi, okay. So it could be on the first floor, over the door or over the window to the
right of the door?
Metzer: Right, yes.
Papke: And those spaces are available. So they actually have a viable Plan B if this is denied?
Metzer: As far as the city’s concerned, yes.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: Debbie.
Larson: Well, maybe I read this wrong but I thought that it said in here, and I’m not finding it at
the moment, that the sign wouldn’t be really where they’re renting their space.
Metzer: Well it’s, go ahead.
16
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Larson: Well it just seems to me like that was very poor planning for the second story of this
building and the signage. I mean from the get go, if they’re going to rent out, they’re going to
build a second story that would accommodate a salon, a lovely salon might I add, I think they
should be able to have some decent signage for this. Signage. If they’re just required to have a
little sign downstairs and the property isn’t even down there, I think that’s very detrimental to
their business and I think that would be considered quite a huge hardship because it sounds like
they’re going to have quite a large rental space in there, and I guess you know if you’re going to
allow the gable sign on the other end, why won’t you allow it? The difference of why we denied
the Americana is because they had 3 signs already and that was going to be an additional one.
But this is, this is like their major sign for the business so people know they’re there and I guess
I’m at a loss why, how did it get this far?
Metzer: …staff did not feel they had the authority to allow signage up there so at that point…
Larson: I think as a business, I’d be angry if I couldn’t put a sign up.
Papke: I’m getting confused now because on page 7 of staff report, when I asked before could
they put it up on that sign band, it says Spalon Montage cannot locate their wall sign on the first
level sign band because of city code.
Metzer: Directly above the common entry.
Papke: So their only option is in the sign band area right where it says area? Is that their only
option?
Metzer: Right. Well I mean it’s not, you know. Anywhere on the sign band other than directly
above that main entry.
Papke: But it sounds like the Bebi store is the one on the left. They’re going to take the spot on
the left, yes? I’m trying to understand what the plan is here.
Sacchet: There’s a couple plans is the problem.
Papke: Yeah. Because it says on page 6, future Bebi wall sign and the arrows points to the left
panel of the sign band. They can’t put it over the center one so that only allows the panel to the
right side of the sign band and is there going to be a business that’s going to go in on the right
side of the door?
Metzer: No, that whole area right here is Bebi. This whole first level.
Sacchet: So technically they would get those three signage spaces?
Metzer: The place where this marks the X is where they cannot place the sign because it’s
common entrance for.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
McDonald: Okay, could I ask a question because I’m confused too, and maybe you answered it.
My approach was to the left of that X, couldn’t they put their sign there? Right there.
Larson: Which page are you looking at?
Sacchet: It’s page 6 Debbie.
McDonald: Okay, so that space would be available?
Metzer: Right.
McDonald: Okay. Now the other thing too when I went out there today, all 3 of those panels
again to the left are going to be taken by Bebi? Or why do they need 3?
Metzer: No, they have one panel.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other 2 panels there would also be available.
Metzer: Right, except the one in the middle directly above Bebi’s main entrance. The one to the
right of it, certainly another option.
McDonald: Okay.
Sacchet: So really if the Bebi guys would have 2 to the left, Spalon could have the next 2.
Metzer: Sure.
Sacchet: I mean that’s an alternative.
Papke: The one to the left and the right of the common.
Sacchet: Yes, two in the corner. Is that a corner there? So they would be to the right of the
entrance. And I don’t know whether that, I think…right of that entrance too. We can ask the
applicant.
McDonald: Well when you drive up there and you park, you’re parking over in the right. You
get out. You come down and you see that sign. That side to the left of where your X is at
anyway. There is no parking in front. So the signs lined up toward where people would park
anyway. That directs them into the common entrance and from there you’ve got signage. Tells
you to go upstairs. Of course at that point you could find it no problem. But okay. So there are
alternatives.
Larson: I’ve got one more.
Sacchet: Yeah, you’re still alright.
18
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Larson: Look at the amount of space they’re renting, come on.
Sacchet: It’s huge.
Larson: I know. And they get one little sign at the bottom? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Sacchet: Well they do go all the way across actually.
Undestad: I think something else you need to consider too though is Bebi, or whatever you say
move out and then all of a sudden you get 2 or 3 tenants taking up their 1 spot, and they don’t get
a sign down there on the lower level where they’re at so.
Larson: I don’t know, it makes sense to me to have it right by.
Metzer: I really don’t know how much extra space there would be in Bebi’s space because on
the opposite elevation, where I’m pointing, this is the east elevation directly on the west side
which would be right here. That’s Bebi on this other east elevation. That’s a totally separate
tenant space.
Sacchet: There’s going to be different ones there. Do we know how far down Spalon Montage
is going to go? If you don’t know we can ask.
Metzer: It’s the entire second level on that wing.
Sacchet: But how far, how far to, I guess that would be to the west. I mean I understand it’s the
whole width of the building.
Undestad: I think they come down to that next peak.
Metzer: My understanding it’s just this area here.
Cindy McDonald: It starts at the back end and it’s that whole east side and then it goes to the
other side. It’s almost 8,000 square feet. They’ve got the majority of that second level.
Metzer: To about here, was that correct?
Larson: Women will find this place, trust me.
Sacchet: So that would be somewhat consistent with this alternative. Alright, we’re still there.
Mark, did you want to add anything from your end more? We’re actually in questions. Just to
be clear, we’re not commenting yet. We’re still asking questions from staff as a matter of fact.
Undestad: Is, I mean the upstairs, the upper level, is that all, do you know if that’s all leased out
now?
19
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Metzer: No. Americana occupies a portion on the west end, and then Spalon on the east. The
area in the middle there’s a potential for 5 separate units. Whether or not 1 or 2 come in there
and take up the entire area, I don’t know yet.
Undestad: So those in the middle then, that small little gable peak in the middle, I think where
Spalon ends, maybe between there and Americana you can get, you’re saying it might be 3 or 4
tenants…
Metzer: As many as 5.
Sacchet: So that would be to the right of the main entrance there.
Undestad: I mean if you look at that, that area there could be as many as 5 upstairs and who’s
downstairs and then you have 3.
McDonald: Actually right now on the south end of that it is occupied by Metz Law Firm. So
they have most of that all the way down to the Americana.
Undestad: On the bottom floor?
McDonald: No, on the top floor. On the south side of the building down here and it’s the north
end that’s totally open at this point.
Sacchet: Interesting. Now, yeah I mean, I’m struggling with the same thing that keeps coming
out. I mean was this just not thought of? I guess that’s an applicant question. Not a Montage
question but the people that thought how these people would be in there. Let’s bring up the
applicant. Let’s hear from you guys.
Cindy McDonald: Cindy McDonald, Kraus-Anderson Realty, 4210 West Old Shakopee Road,
Bloomington, 55437.
Mitchell Wherley: Mitchell Wherley, President of Spalon Montage and I office in our current
Chanhassen location. I have no idea what the address is. Moving 600 Market Street.
Cindy McDonald: To answer a couple of the questions that were brought up. The Market Street
Station was thought of to be retail on the first level with office on the second level. Then we
came upon a great opportunity to relocate Spalon to our property, which is great for our property.
Great for all the tenants and to draw traffic to that building. There is Americana signage on the
second level, the gabled area. I wish we would have thought of Spalon, that they would be at the
second level so we could have put that on the original plan but we didn’t know that then. We’ve
asked for this amendment so we can accommodate their needs, so people can see them when
they come in and I know the signage criteria is strict but I’m pretty picky. All the tenants have to
send their signage criteria to us first to take a look at it. We usually kick it back a few times to
make sure it’s going to look right for the building, and when we asked for this amendment, we
have no intentions of putting any additional signage on the second level. You know were it not
for Spalon, we wouldn’t be putting signage up there but they are retail tenants. They do need
20
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
that signage so people can come in and see them. So we will give you whatever assurance or, in
writing you’re looking for. There will be no more signs on the gabled areas. We want the
building to look attractive as well.
Sacchet: Let me just clarify because I think it’s an important point. You’re saying since
originally it was viewed more office space, you don’t have the same signing need.
Cindy McDonald: No. We told all the office tenants too that have looked, that there is no
signage on the second level.
Sacchet: Okay. So how do we know who’s up there? I mean it’s kind of you have to know
because you’re going there or for the offices.
Cindy McDonald: Oh, there’s a directory inside and there’s a monument sign.
Sacchet: There is a monument sign, that’s what I wanted to know.
Cindy McDonald: They’re for the office tenants, so that’s kind of you know, and one of the first
questions is we want signage. We want signage…monument sign. The Americana doesn’t get it
because you know as you said, they have 2 great permanent signs and people see them when
they’re coming in. And yeah, Chadwick and Americana are there now and Spalon is under
construction and we have 3 other tenants that are looking at the space, all office tenants.
Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you want to add from your end?
Mitchell Wherley: I think from the beginning working on this project signage was an issue for
me as a retail business in general and so we look at what’s been proposed as sort of the most
minimum signage we would need. When we were looking at sort of the rotunda area that is the
entrance to the office facility, I believe you were suggesting a portion that is actually common
area, so the only other option, that I think Josh pointed out, was to the right would be, we’re
concerned going in. We are a destination so that helps but our being able to identify where we’re
at is hugely important to us. We’ve always been concerned about how to portray that message
and we just feel that it’s critical that it’s upstairs so that you know we’re not letting the neon
arrows pointing so…
Cindy McDonald: You know the sign that they’re proposing, they worked very hard in putting it
together. It’s a very, it’s a very tasteful sign. It looks very nice with the building. To put it on
the first level I think would be confusing because it’s going to be right over the retail locations
and this really does designate where they are in the project. They’re estimating to bring in 400
customers on average per day to this building so again this signage is very key to them. And to
us.
Sacchet: Any questions? Let’s start with Debbie this time.
Larson: Is it a lit sign?
21
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Cindy McDonald: It is.
Larson: Okay, that’s all.
Sacchet: Jerry.
McDonald: Okay. I have a number of questions for you. First of all if we put the sign in the
gable and we go back to the picture that you just, yeah that picture right there that you just put
up. It appears to me like it looks like, as you come in that door that’s almost directly below it.
So while it does give you some visibility, I’m not sure that it takes care of the problem of how do
I get there. The other question I’ve got is, what harm would it do to go into that second level to
the left of the main entrance because again in the parking lot, as people go in, you get out of your
car, that’s the direction you’re facing and it sends you into the common door, and as I said once
you get in there, you know where you’re at.
Mitchell Wherley: I couldn’t agree with you more. The challenge is, you’re looking at about a
section that wide facing a hotel room that I don’t think there’s a ton of visibility right there. I
think that’s a really challenging, you know it would be sort of in the shadow facing the wrong
way. If we could have it, the best world for us we’d put it above the office entrance. I mean
there’s no question I’d love to drive the traffic in that door but I know it doesn’t work for the
landlord. It just, it’s not fair to the other tenants. They walk in our signage. I just think that this
section, this right here is pointing to the direction that.
McDonald: But that’s out toward the parking lot where everybody’s going to be parking and as
they come in they’re going to see that first.
Mitchell Wherley: There is, the majority of the parking for this particular project is out in front
here.
McDonald: But then in that case it doesn’t make any difference where you put the sign then
because now you have nothing on that, on the south end to point you towards you building. I
understand your frustration and everything but let me ask you another question. What are the
alternatives in your view? If we were to deny the signage on the gable, have you looked at any
other alternatives?
Mitchell Wherley: This was a deal breaker for us. We’re way beyond, I mean we’re, and I
apologize for I guess I’m after the fact as well but signage was an issue going into this project..
We’re a million dollars in reconstruction and I don’t see another option for us.
McDonald: Well let me go back to their real estate company.
Larson: I have a question too.
Cindy McDonald: You know when you’re coming in off Market Boulevard where the sign is
proposed, you’ll see it and that’s how you’re going to get the customer into that parking lot and
if it was on that other spot, that’s really part of the three door common area entry way to the
22
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
office. Once they see that sign, they’re going to park in the parking lot. They’re going to go in
those 3 doors because we feel that it’s pretty prominently marked that that’s the entrance to get
in. Once they get in, there’s a directory internally to the right that will say Spalon Montage,
Suite 270. So the stairs are right there. It takes them right up there.
McDonald: Okay, well you realize you’re making the same argument the bank tried to make to
us about the gable sign down at the other end as far as pointing people to the bank and it didn’t
quite fall on the receptive ears.
Cindy McDonald: Yeah but they have adequate signage where people can see them from two
directions. We’re asking for you know a prominent spot for Spalon so people can see where they
are and get to them.
McDonald: Well that is a mitigating factor and that’s why I’m trying to get at, okay what are the
alternatives and are they going to be viable but what I wanted to come back to you about was,
when the building was put up and you went and you got a gabled sign for Americana, why
Americana and why not try to do something so that the rest of the building at some point could
have the gabled signs. I don’t understand the deal that was, you know what was the
understanding there? You know the problem that I understand the city, we’re trying to get things
architecturally so that they don’t look like retail spaces and gawdy and you know lots of lights
and all of this kind of stuff. It should be kind of understated and the building seems to fit that the
way it is but just explain to me a little bit about how the gable signs got down at the Americana
end.
Cindy McDonald: You know when, I can’t, the developer unfortunately is not here but when
they had the vision of putting the building together they thought you know a bank would work.
Again they weren’t planning on any office tenants for the second level and in keeping with the
look of the building, we wanted to limit the signage to have a nice ambience to the property but
yet identify the tenants. So we didn’t want to add all this signage up and down. So yes, it was
put in that one gabled area. If we could go back it would be put in you know a couple areas for
that flexibility. But we really feel it’s important for the Spalon in this location.
McDonald: You know as we said, one of the things we try to do is treat everybody equally.
What’s going to happen if you rent out, you’re right now at 8,000 square feet roughly? What
happens if they rent out 10,000 square feet? Are you going to come back and say you know we
need something over at this gable because this is a big client? I mean where does it stop? It
looks as though when the original development was put together everything was thought out as
to how this was going to operate. I’m having trouble coming up with a reason of why should we
deviate from what we have originally put in place here.
Cindy McDonald: Well besides the fact that Mitchell has told me he’s going to stay forever at
the property, you know this is.
Larson: That’s what he told the last tenant.
23
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Cindy McDonald: I know. If they left they would probably be replaced with an office tenant
thereby no signage. So we are asking not for a sign in that particular gabled area. We are asking
for the Spalon sign in that gabled area. And again any assurances that we can give you in writing
or what not, if we have to say that if Spalon vacates there’s no sign in that gabled area, we are
more than willing to do that.
Undestad: The intent was the office space upstairs.
Cindy McDonald: Right.
Undestad: The bank…signs over the bank. You didn’t want any other gable signage because
you were renting out to office tenants. Now you have a retail tenant in there.
Cindy McDonald: A fabulous one.
Undestad: Obviously I mean retail survives off of signage.
Cindy McDonald: Correct. And you know also the entry area works with the retailers. It’s open
and people, you know they’re counting on Spalon being there and that synergy between
customers coming in and going up there and going down to CPA’s and.
Undestad: How many square feet do you have left upstairs for lease?
Cindy McDonald: We have, it’s about a little less than 10.
Undestad: And do you have people looking in those now?
Cindy McDonald: Yes, office tenants. Accounts primarily. There’s a lot of accountants have
come forward lately.
Undestad: Got to stay close to the money.
Cindy McDonald: I know. So we’re trying to wrap up those deals as well but they all know
there’s no signage.
McDonald: Okay. What other alternatives are there for signs out front on Market Street? I
noticed that there’s a memorial sign that goes there. What kind of play would Spalon Montage
get on that?
Cindy McDonald: They will get a panel.
McDonald: Just a panel.
Cindy McDonald: Just a panel.
McDonald: Okay. I have no more questions.
24
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? No? Not at this point, no. Thank you very
much.
Cindy McDonald: Thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing. So I open the public hearing and since there’s nobody
here to stand up I close the public hearing. And we had a public hearing and bring it back to
commission here for discussion and comments about this. And I do like to point out a comment
first in this particular case. I like to point out what in the findings of fact it states that, actually
the staff report. The findings of fact which I think is kind of fulcrum what we’re asked to look at
as a commission. We’re asked to look at the creation of the functional and harmonious design
for structures and site features with special attention to the following. The proposed amendment
does not, and that’s the finding, does not create an internal sense of order for the buildings and
uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community because the proposed sign is located outside of the first level sign band. Now I have
a definite comment to make about that but I just want to point this out before I make a comment,
and then I want to hear from you a little more. Any, I mean we already had some discussion so
far.
Papke: I’ll start. Oddly enough I find myself in support of this one. This is different than
Americana. Americana, and correct me if my memory of this is wrong but I thought one of the
sticking points for that one was, that was a sign on a canopy which was against city code.
Sacchet: It already had 3 or 4.
Papke: And they already had 3 or 4. This is not a sign on a canopy so we are not, this is not
asking for a variance from a safety perspective or something of that nature. Americana clearly
had tons of signage there. There was no question that they had plenty of visibility. This one,
boy if I was the applicant, I would want something other than a tiny little sign on the sign panel
there and the fact that the occupy such a huge piece of that second floor. I think this is a
reasonable request. It does not, if we were looking at, if the planning department and they could
say I’m all wet here. If they were planning this building right now and Spalon Montage said we
want this whole corner of the building on the second floor and we want a sign on the gable just
like Americana Bank, I suspect we wouldn’t be here tonight. Okay, this would have been in the
design from day one. So I think this is clearly in the best interest of the city and the applicant so
I support this one.
Sacchet: Who wants to go next? Jerry.
McDonald: I’ll go. We’ll go down the line. Okay, I’m having a lot of trouble with this one.
You know I supported the Americana sign because of advertising and I felt that on that elevation
they had a problem. Evidently that you didn’t care but I guess I can kind of understand why
we’re trying to have consistency. We’ve now fallen back to where, okay if we put one in here,
who’s to say next month another tenant that’s fairly big comes down and wants one on the other
and we’re faced with it. So does this come down to how much square footage you take up is the
25
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
way we end up voting? Shouldn’t be that way. I’m a little concerned that in the beginning you
know some of this wasn’t looked at. That down the road maybe I’ll get somebody big on the
other side because at that point this was totally open. This was not divided space. You know all
of this was set up for you know, we’ll sell to whoever comes. We’ll custom build it. Put the
walls up where you want it so there’s a little bit of short sightedness there and it’s, did they only
do the deal down at the other end just to get the bank? So I’m having a lot of problems with this.
I understand that Spalon Montage needs signage. You’ve got, you know fairly decent signage
where you’re at now. It points to where the location is. Because of the size of it, yeah I lean
towards well maybe you ought to get a little bit bigger sign than what Bebi gets. You are
different. So I’m really having a problem deciding which way to go on this but you know, I did
go to the site today. I looked at it. I do think that some of the alternatives provide you with the
signage needed because even back in that corner people have to know where you’re at anyway
because they can’t see you from the road so this has no effect on Market Boulevard. It has no
th
effect on anybody driving down West 78 Street. They can’t see it from there. So it’s not to me
th
the same as what the bank was trying to do was to get visibility on 78 Street. Even if you put it
th
up in the gable they’re not going to see it on 78 Street. That’s why I asked the questions about
the parking lot and where people are going to park. You tell me everybody’s going to be out on
kind of the south side. There’s no signs there. There’s nothing there to point you to where
Spalon Montage is going to be. How they going to find it? Are they going to have to walk all
the way around the building? So even if you do that then all the parking over there on that side,
once you get out of your car and you start walking toward the entrance, you see that side panel. I
mean it jumps out at you so that’s where I come back and say, no we ought to stay within the
guidelines because really we’re not buying anything and all we’re doing is we’re going against
what evidently the agreement was. What we’re trying to achieve you know with this property as
far as it’s an architectural look. I’m still undecided. No matter what I say it’s, and I don’t know
which way I’m going to vote at this point. I’ll wait and listen to everybody else but I probably
am leaning against it but I could be swayed.
Sacchet: Who wants to go first here? Mark.
Undestad: Well I think the comments about agreements and what was agreed to, what was not
agreed to. I think the space was built out or was originally designed for an office use, which they
don’t need that type of signage. Circumstances change. Tenants come in. Spalon Montage has
been in Chanhassen. They’re a nice tenant in the neighborhood. They’re a retail tenant. They
need that visibility. Whether it brings you right to their front door, or to their building, it’s more
signage that’s going to tell people, here we are. Once you get there, they’ll find them. I think in
the future you know their comments are, you know what if somebody comes in and takes your
other 10,000 square feet you know or it sounds like you’re talking office users that are going to
be in there but I think even at that, again from the beginning they had anticipated office space out
there. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get a tenant on the opposite side of the building that comes
in and might be retail. May need some signage on the canopy on that side. I don’t think the
building is designed and set up so that we’ve got just one after another after another where
they’re going to be annoying. Too many lights. Too many signs. Too much stuff going on. So
I think just the fact that from the retail standpoint and what’s going on upstairs, I guess I would
support it. I’m in favor of putting the signage up there.
26
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Sacchet: Debbie.
Larson: Ditto. The way I see it too, I mean you’ve got 8,000 square feet. That’s considered,
what I would consider anyway an anchor store. You need signage and to have just a small panel
is just, I think it was just poor planning, you know. You didn’t necessarily have the foresight to
think that somebody was going to go take it. I think it’s wonderful that they have because you
know as Mark pointed out, they’re a nice tenant to have in Chanhassen and I’d like to have them
stay. The sign they’ve designed is tasteful and I hope if somebody else were to go in and take
the other 10,000 square feet we’d reconsider for them too. To have a tasteful sign and I would
probably support that one also so my stance is, I would certainly support it. I don’t think it’s a
big deal.
Sacchet: Well I don’t know whether I have too much to add. I mean I want to go back to this
statement in the findings and that our responsibility is to create a functional, harmonious design
of the structures, the site features in compliance with the city guidelines, and then the findings
say the proposed amendment does not create an internal sense of order. Well as a matter of fact I
think it creates a sense of internal order. As a matter of fact without the sign of a major retail
tenant I think we create disorder. I think putting that sign there does create order and it creates a
desirable environment. That’s another thing we have to look at. Does it create, I can’t see why
we would say this does not create a desirable environment. I mean this is Market Square. This
is, there is no residential anywhere surrounding. I mean if you want to put up a sign in the city
of Chanhassen, let’s put it up in Market Square. That’s kind of where I’m coming from. That’s
the use of that. That’s the desirability of that spot. That’s why we have that part of town that we
call downtown and we want to denote, that we want to have business and I think that in this
sense we have to adjust a little bit our criteria. Desirable in this sense. It’s slightly different
desiring in the sense is to have visibility to make the business prosper. To have good business
want to be there. To have this place be successful as a whole combination of businesses. And
then desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community. Well, desirable for
the occupants and visitors is that they know where to go. That people can see where it is so I
really think that we would be cutting ourselves short by getting hung up over it was only the first
band in the first place. Well, there’s the Bebi store downstairs to put a sign up in the same
magnitude of Bebi store, I don’t think is fair. That’s not supporting the business and I think as a
community, as a city we have the responsibility to support the businesses in this town to prosper.
So that’s where I stand with that one so I’m definitely in favor of this. I do think, as Kurt you
pointed out, this is very different from what we looked at with Americana Bank. Americana
Bank has I think 4 signs or 3 signs and a monument sign. And we ask them well, do you want to
give up one of those and you can have the other one. And they decided well, I don’t really want
to do that so then we denied it because we didn’t want an additional one. They already had
plenty signs. Spalon doesn’t have really any viable signage as it is, to put like those two panels
and then I find that would actually be confusing. Maybe the one panel on the left part of the
door could be also small Spalon sign that kind of leads people to the door, and then the big one
would be that makes people know there it is. That’s what I would do personally, and I think that
is within the framework that we’re working with. Basically I do not agree with the finding of
staff that this particular proposal does not create an internal sense of order and desirability. I
think it’s the opposite. I think putting that there does create an internal sense of order for that
type of a building. For that type of setting. That type of use and it definitely creates a desirable
27
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
environment for the business, for the visitors and for the community. That’s my position on that.
Unless there’s more discussion or comments I’d like to have a motion.
Larson: Okay, where is it?
Sacchet: It’s on page 8.
Larson: What do I read?
McDonald: You want the second paragraph Debbie.
Larson: Read this?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Larson: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve Site Plan Amendment
#05-33 to place an illuminated sign on the second level of Market Street Station outside of the
approved first floor sign band based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following
conditions.
Sacchet: 1 through 3.
Larson: 1 through 3.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Undestad: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion and a second.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends City
Council approve Site Plan Amendment #05-33 to place an illuminated sign on the second
level of Market Street Station outside of the approved first floor sign band based on the
findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit engineered drawings showing how the sign will be
constructed before a sign permit will be issued.
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
3. All signage must meet ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 2005 as presented.
28
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m..
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
29