Loading...
1986 01 08 ... r-~..' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 8, 1986 vice Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ryan STAFF PRESENT Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Vicki Churchill, Secretary. Organizational Items: a. Election of Chairman b. Election of Vice-Chairman c. Approval of By-Laws M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska, to table this item until after the public hearings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Sign Variance Request for an area identification sign on property zoned P-l, Planned Residential Development and located in the Near Mountain Development, Lundgren Brothers, applicant. Public Present Peter Pflaum Lundgren Brothers Olsen stated that on August 17, 1983, Lundgren Brothers received a sign permit for a temporary real estate sign to be located on Highway 101 at Townline Road. She also stated that on October 17, 1983, the City Council approved a sign variance for an 80 square foot temporary identification sign at the northwest corner of Highway 101 and Pleasant View Road. She stated that the applicant is now requesting a variance to construct a second tem- porary identification sign at the southwest corner of Townline Road and Vine Hill Road. She stated that that applicant is requesting a 55 square foot sign and the maximum is 24 square feet. She also stated that the Sign Ordinance only allows one temporary identification sign per construction site. She stated that the existing sign advertises both phases of the development, Chestnut Ridge and Trapper's Pass. She noted that the applicant is proposing to advertise only Trapper's Pass and the sign will be located on the south end of the Near Mountain development. ,_~i1"__ _ ~ . Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1986 Page 2 Olsen stated that the purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to mini- mize the impact of signs throughout the city. She stated that the applicant already has one allowable temporary identification sign advertising both phases for the Near Mountain construction site and staff is recommending denial of the sign variance. Peter Pflaum stated that he knows the regulations of the Sign Ordinance, however, he stated that they are asking for the sign variance because the property is very large and they have limited exposure from the site. He stated that some of the property is in the Shorewood area and they wanted to advertise that area of the development. He stated that the most important aspect of selling the development is advertising. He felt that Vine Hill Road was well traveled and that it is the only other major access to the project. He felt that there would not be a lot of traffic created from the sign but felt that it would inform people that they have a project in that area. M. Thompson asked what the requirements were for the present sign. - Olsen stated that the sign will need to be removed when construc- tion is completed. Siegel asked the applicant why he was going over the size requirement. Peter Pflaum stated that because Vine Hill Road is a dangerous road, they felt that if the sign was larger and more legible it would be less of a hazard by people not slowing down to read it. He also stated that in the winter, between the snow drifts and plows on that road, if the sign was smaller, it would be covered. Siegel felt that the applicant should stay within the size requirement of the ordinance because people would be slowing down for the curve anyway. Conrad felt that the Sign Ordinance was put into place for a reason. He felt that because of the large site maybe the ordi- nance is not fair and felt that maybe the ordinance should be amended to allow two temporary identification signs. He felt that the sign size should be within the restrictions of the ordi- nance. . M. Thompson felt that there should be some consideration based on the size of the development and road exposure. He also stated that it is to our benefit to help the developers to promote our community. He stated that it is also on their property. .- Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1986 Page 3 Emmings entered the meeting at this point. Emmings stated that after reviewing this request from the last meeting in which it was tabled, his feeling was that if there was any reasonable need, he was going to be in favor of it and he missed the discussion. He felt that if the sign was temporary until they completed the project he felt that was reasonable. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska, to recommend approval of the proposal as presented by the applicant because of the size of the property, the size of the project, the sign is on-site and because of the road exposure of the site. Conrad asked M. Thompson if he felt the size was appropriate? M. Thompson stated yes. M. Thompson, Noziska, Siegel and Emmings voted in favor and the motion carried. e~, Conrad was opposed. He stated that he primarily voted against the size of the sign and felt that it should be within the limits of the ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING Sign Variance Request to allow an off premise institutional sign, Minnewashta Church, applicant. Public Present Jeremy Cone Representing the Minnewashta Church Olsen stated that the Minnewashta Church is located at 26715 62nd Street and the applicant is requesting an off premise institu- tional sign to be located on Gary Carlson's property at Hwy. 7 and Church Road. She stated that this location would allow the sign to be seen by traffic traveling on Hwy. 7 and to direct traffic one block north to 62nd street. She stated that the sign is proposed to be 8 square feet in size and will be constructed of treated wood. She stated that the Sign Ordinance allows one on-premise institutional sign for an institution and prohibits any off-premises advertising signs. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the sign variance request because granting of the variance would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the Sign Ordinance. e M. Thompson asked the applicant why they are asking for an 8 square foot sign. Jeremy Cone stated that the sign was designed to comply with state regulations. . Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1986 Page 4 Conrad asked if there would be a significant hardship they would suffer if the request was denied. Jeremy Cone stated that they had a sign about 8 years ago, however, it was taken down because it was in the Hwy. 7 right-of- way. He stated that in the last three to four years they have had a regrowth and they were getting more people and they felt that with a sign they would probably be able to draw more. He stated that with a small church it is sometimes hard to get by to make ends meet. He felt that if they had a sign, it would let new people in the area know where they are located. He stated that they have a lot of people calling them who do not know where the church is located. Emmings stated that he cannot see how the sign will fill his objectives. He stated that Hwy. 7 along there is a treacherous piece of highway and there are a lot of signs along there now. He stated that the fire station is across the street and there are a lot merge signs there. He did not feel people would choose a church from a sign along the side of the road and suggested that they advertise in the newspaper. He stated that he supports staff on this request. . Siegel stated that he would support the sign because of the nature of request and the minimal amount of signage asked for. He felt they would be contradictory in promoting a variance for a development and not for a church. Noziska stated that if the church feels it will help their attendance and because the small size of the sign, he had no objections. M. Thompson stated that the difference between this request and the development request is that it is an off site sign. He stated that 8 square feet is not bad. He felt that maybe the sign should be issued on a temporary basis and be reviewed every two years. Conrad stated that he would prefer to see the ordinance amended. He stated that he has no problems with the request; however, he felt it would set a precedence. He stated that a church or religous group should be placed in a different category than institutional. He stated that it is not offensive or cluttered but the Sign Ordinance prohibits this. M. Thompson stated that Hwy. 7 was cluttered with signs but asked if they were not on the other side of the highway? - Emmings stated that there is a lot of signs on the left side and the directional signs are on the right side but there are a lot of things to look at. He stated that he does not think this is inconsistent with the request they just approved because one is . . ~ Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1986 Page 5 temporary and one is permanent. He stated that he could agree with what Mike suggested. Siegel felt that the sign would not be an eye sore or disruptive or that it would infringe on the area. Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to recommend approval of the Sign variance Request #85-15 with the provision that it be reviewed in two years and that it shall not be placed closer than 10 feet to any street right-of-way. Noziska, M. Thompson, Siegel and Emmings voted in favor. Conrad was opposed. Motion carried. Conrad stated that he would prefer to see the ordinance amended by placing churches in a different category. Sign Variance Request for one area identification sign of 160 square feet at the intersection of Highway 5 and Park Drive, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Opus Corporation, applicant. This item was cancelled. Organizational Items: a. Election of Chairman Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to re-elect Bill Ryan as Chairman for another term. All voted in favor and the motion carried. b. Election of Vice-Chairman M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska, to re-elect Ladd Conrad as Vice Chairman for another term. All voted in favor and the motion carried. c. Approval of By-Laws Noziska moved to approve the By-Laws with a minor change to the percentage of attendance. He felt that the percentage of atten- dance should be changed to 60% instead of 75%. After discussion of the change, Noziska withdrew the motion. Noziska moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to approve the By-Laws as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e-, e~ e, Planning commission Minutes January 8, 1986 Page 6 M. Thompson, who represents the Planning Commission at the HRA meetings, stated that he wanted someone else to take the posi- tion. Robert Siegel stated that he would take the responsibility for the 1986 year. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska, to elect Robert siegel as the HRA representative. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Approval of Minutes Siegel moved, seconded by M. Thompson, to approve the December 11, 1985 minutes as written. M. Thompson, Conrad and Siegel voted in favor. Emmings and Noziska abstained. Motion carried. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Conrad, to approve the December 18, 1985 minutes as written. M. Thompson, Conrad and Emmings voted in favor. Noziska and Siegel abstained. Motion carried. Open Discussion Duane Barth was present at the meeting to informally discuss with the Commissioners his sketch plan for a subdivision with a recreational beachlot. His main concern is with the beachlot. He is proposing a dock with 17 slips, one for each lot proposed. The Commissioners stated that they would oppose the dock with 17 slips which is regulated by the Beachlot Ordinance. They stated that other than the dock issue, his plan looked good. The Commissioners suggested that the applicant may want to take this to the City Council and get their reaction; however, they would uphold the existing ordinance. M. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Vicki Churchill