Loading...
PC Minutes 10-18-05Planning 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