Loading...
CC Minutes 11-14-05 City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Good luck with the move. Cindy Koenig: Thank you. 1(k). SPALON MONTAGE: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO PLACE A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE FO THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA, 600 MARKET STREET, KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-33. Councilman Lundquist: Issue with this one Mr. Mayor, wasn’t more than a couple of weeks ago we had a sign variance request for the same building. Understand it was different. That they already had some signage on the second, or higher elevations let’s call it. Couple of questions I guess I was looking at either when we went through that one and in the staff report on this one as well, staff talked about being careful with where we’re putting signs and we do it once and then the next one and the next one and the next one and the next one and pretty soon you know, they’ll be flashing bright neon lights like the movie theater sign did in the beginning so I want to be cautious about what those signs are. Where they are. Do they really have to have it there? Is there another spot for it that would serve purposes, you know understand that the building was set up for offices at the beginning on that second story. Now things change and that’s fine, but as a, I wasn’t comfortable as a consent agenda item to have that out there so just like to have some staff input on that sign and any other like it in the city or in the area. Do we have any other second story sign kind of things and some discussion. Kate Aanenson: You bring up some good points Councilman Lundquist and that every project that comes in, a multi tenant one like this, we try to approve a site plan. In this instance they’re asked for us, actually an amendment to the sign package that we approved. They could have asked for a variance. They chose not to. The variance would have been to put it over the front door, which they didn’t want to put one over the front door. This is the space that Spalon is going into, so they wanted a sign over the top to get visibility over that use, but it’s, internally in staff we were having a lot of issues regarding that because if you put it over this, it almost leads you to believe you go into this door. That’s a single tenant. It’s not the multi tenant. But our rules say if it’s a multi tenant, you shouldn’t have a single sign over that, but you still could have got, they could have applied for a variance from that rule as opposed to the sign amendment allowing the sign on the top. Again we’ve been careful about how we place those. I just wanted to take a minute and kind of go through. Actually this was put together for the Planning Commission and it’s a series of photos that are put together so it’s not quite, you can see there’s some chop lines in there. When it originally came in they knew the bank was going to be a tenant so they fully disclosed it was their intent to put the bank sign up on the top, so that was approved right on the outset. In the instance of the Spalon, like you indicated, that was intended, we intended or they envisioned that they may be offices, so we didn’t really contemplate that 23 City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 type of signage on the top. So those areas that are shaded were the ones that were approved. There’s the possibility that there’s two other peaks you know that could come in for a site plan amendment which goes back to your points. This would be the one that’s coming in now. This peak and there are other peaks. The one that came in for the bank on the canopy was again a variance because we don’t allow signs on canopies. We have a lot of other banks in town and we don’t allow them on gas stations either. Just that’s the ordinance so they came in under a variance request on that. So a little different than the site plan or the sign amendment that they’re going for here tonight. But you’re right, they could always come back and ask for some on the other peaks. But we internally trying to discuss other ways to give us some other options but there was another option and that was to go over the center door and that would have requested a variance on that door but I think they felt, because the Spalon was on the second floor that they wanted the visibility. But there is some maybe some miscuing too that people have to figure out that that’s not the door you go into to get into the Spalon. Councilman Peterson: I think there’s going to be a lot of miscuing. Kate Aanenson: I think so too. We had a lot of internal discussions regarding that. Whether they chose to go for the site plan amendment. That was their request. Obviously the staff, you have to process the application but there would be another approach and that would be to get the variance and their recommendation is they wouldn’t allow it. But I guess that’s kind of partially your decision too if you chose not on that site. Councilman Lundquist: It’d be great if that store had the same type of clientele as the Spalon. While you’re here. Kate Aanenson: And the Planning Commission did vote to approve it, the amendment 5 to 0 when they held their hearing. Mayor Furlong: Question for you. The picture that you held up there with the red, that one there. The peak to the right of that picture. Yeah. Is there a sign there? Kate Aanenson: No. Those are showing potential other peaks that someone could ask for. Mayor Furlong: Okay, they could ask for but right now on the site plan those are not included? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. They’d have to come back for another amendment. So you have that control. Mayor Furlong: One of the things that I saw in their application, which if I can find it here. Councilman Labatt: Page 356. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At the end it says the owner is willing to provide any assurance necessary that there would be no more, no additional requests for second floor signage. Councilman Lundquist, perhaps this speaks to your issue and if that’s not in the site plan right now, is that something. 24 City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: I don’t know how you can get that. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, they’ll provide assurance until the next time they have a tenant that wants to come in and do it. Mayor Furlong: Well unless it’s a condition of approval. Kate Aanenson: I would ask, I don’t think you can. Roger Knutson: This is not a conditional use permit we’re dealing with. This is site plan review to determine whether what they’re asking for, is it consistent with our ordinance requirements. So the question for us is, do they meet the sign ordinance requirements. If they do, they, and the ordinance would say, allow it. And if it doesn’t, then the answer is no. But it’s really difficult, I mean you can incorporate if you will, into his statement that he’s assured us that he won’t do it, and that would just be kind of a like a moral promise. Mayor Furlong: Which is what most promises are. Councilman Peterson: Some of them have to enforce a law. Mayor Furlong: That’s true. That’s true. Kate Aanenson: Or if it got sold and somebody else came in and requested. But again, because it’s a site plan amendment, we do allow signs on a second story. It’s just that we had approved a specific sign package for this use and say this is what we believe makes sense and is architecturally, you know the only way we would allow to go up higher is the bank and that was… Mayor Furlong: And what changed here was the tenant mix. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Mayor Furlong: That they were anticipating at the time. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Something. Mayor Furlong: The bank was anticipated, which was, we dealt with earlier. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that was originally approved but then it was going and they wanted the visibility for that type of use. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, how about other, like you said like the Chanhassen Lawn and Sports thing over there across the street, right. Is that sign still up high? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. 25 City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: What other locations do we have in kind of the central downtown that have second story? Kate Aanenson: Actually if you look at the Klein Bank. I think there’s some higher on that, that have some of the other firms that are in there. I’m not sure on Byerly’s. Councilman Labatt: Isn’t there one on the west side of Byerly’s? Kate Aanenson: On the west side of Byerly’s, yeah. There’s some office space up there that has some too. Councilman Labatt: On the west wall. West elevation there’s some. Councilman Lundquist: Is this a lighted sign? I can’t remember. Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. It’s illuminated. Yes. Mayor Furlong: But it’s back lit. It’s not neon. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. We do check lumens now. Yeah, so again it’s one of those things where you want to restrict it so you’ve got some control when you’re looking at it but in this circumstance we were pretty restrictive and hadn’t anticipated the change in mix. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Or discussion. On this. If there’s none, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Any other discussion? Councilman Peterson: I feel your pain. I agree with it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Yes. Cindy McDonald: I know you typically don’t… Mayor Furlong: Certainly, please come forward. Cindy McDonald: Cindy McDonald, Kraus-Anderson Realty representing the owner and the manager. For the Spalon sign, again we really don’t want any additional signs up on the second level. We’re pretty particular on the signage that we approve for our tenants. But we did not have any vision that Spalon would come to our property when they did and said that they would lease 8,000 square feet. It was a great opportunity for the property, and signage for them is very important. They’re wrapping up their construction and they’re going to be opening in a few days. The sign that is in your packet, it’s white. It’s very tastefully done. It looks great on the building and on those other peaks, you know we really have no vision of putting any additional sign. The reason that it would not look right over those three doors is that is the office entry. If 26 City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 it is positioned in the place that we proposed, you’ll see that they’re up on the second level. Once they go in that main office entry atrium, there’s a directory signage right there that says Suite 270. You go up the stairs and they’ll see that Spalon is up there, so we feel that that doesn’t confuse the customer on how to get there and where they’re located. If we would put Spalon sign on that first area, the sign band, right now Bebi’s sign is in production and is going to go there so we actually have a tenant right at that first area where they’re proposing to put a sign. That would be confusing because it would look like there’s two tenants there and there’s actually one tenant on the first level and then Spalon up on the second level. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Since you had volunteered to go up there, say that again. Kate, do you have that picture of the building? Kate Aanenson: We understood that there’s a tenant here… Cindy McDonald: Right. This is Bebi. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Kate Aanenson: Right, but our recommendation was… Cindy McDonald: Right, and that’s the office entry. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but that’s where you’ve got to go in to get up there, right? Cindy McDonald: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: So you’ve got to go in that door to see the sign that says Suite 270. You go up the stairs and it’s over there. If you put it above the other one, they’re going to walk right through that door and go, how do I get to Spalon Montage? I mean I’m just, I’m not following where, if you put it over the center door that you have to go in to get to the place, why that’s going to be confusing to people when they put it above the space if they go through that door directly below where the sign is. That’s not the place you go. Cindy McDonald: Yeah, we feel that they’re coming down Market Boulevard, that they will see that sign. They’ll get there and they’ll be able to figure out how to go upstairs. Right now we have our building address sign in that area. Right above the three doors. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Won’t there be something on the door as they walk in that says Spalon Montage? Cindy McDonald: Yes, there will be. Inside. Councilman Lundquist: The Bebi thing that says Spalon Montage that way. 27 City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 Councilman Peterson: But the same number of people are going to go to that main entrance looking for another office complex in there will be dissuaded from going into that entrance to Spalon Montage so… Mayor Furlong: That’s the thing for all the tenants that use that common entrance. Cindy McDonald: Yeah, it looks like you’re walking right into Spalon Montage, and when you walk into that office entry, you’re able to figure out what’s going on. We have CJ’s. It’s a very open environment and the directory we do feel will assist. And once you walk up the stairs and they have a big presence. They have a great looking store. Councilman Lundquist: Thank you. Cindy McDonald: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist: Let the floodgates open. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the request from Spalon Montage for a site plan amendment to place a wall sign outside of the approved sign band area, 600 Market Street, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, Planning Case 05-33. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I know you’ve been waiting months and months and months for an update on the 41 river crossing. Mayor Furlong: It’s almost 3 years. Councilman Lundquist: Be careful what you ask for. Should have one of these brochures. Attended a meeting last week, I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday night with MnDot and all of the other affected municipality representatives of that elected representatives of those municipalities so, really what’s going on is MnDot has 6 options for a new bridge to cross the river. And the intention is to connect new 212 with 169 in Shakopee. So in this brochure there’s a map with all the alignments and all of that good stuff. This is a project that MnDot is in an 28