Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-08-2008CITY OF MEDINA 2052 COUNTY ROAD 24 MEDINA, MN 55340 AGENDA MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEDINA CITY HALL 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of March 11, 2008 Planning Commission minutes 6. Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church — 155 County Road 24 (PID# 24-118-23-41-0013) — Variance from sign setback requirements. 7. Bill and Diane Nunn — 2825 Willow Drive (PID# 16-118-23-14-0005) — Conditional Use Permit to construct on addition to an existing accessory structure 8. Walter G. Anderson — 4535 Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-13-0004 and 04- 118-23-13-0003) — Site Plan Review, amended Conditional Use Permit, and Variance for the construction of a 4,800 sq. ft. addition; Preliminary Plat to combine two lots 9. Future Meeting Information a) Open House for the Trunk Highway 55/CR 116 Intersection Improvement Project, April 22, 2008 at Medina City Hall, 7:00 PM. b) Special Meeting/Joint Workshop with City Council, Planning Commission, Park Commission and city staff on "Low Impact Design/Development" (facilitated by consultants from Bonestroo) — April 29, 2008 at Hamel Community Building — 7:00 PM.. 10.Adjourn Posted in City Hall April 4, 2008 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1. Call to Order: Chair Jeff Pederson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Jeff Pederson, Michele Litts, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid (left meeting at 8:35 p.m.), Jim Simons and Mary Verbick. Absent: Planning Commissioner Charles Nolan. Also Present: Planning Director Tim Benetti, Associate Planner Dusty Finke, and City Wetland Conservation Act Agent John Smyth. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda Pederson stated that last year, MetroWest Inspections and Highway 55 Rental had donated trees which were planted at Maple Park during Clean -Up day. Loren Kohnen had already offered trees again this year. Pederson stated that if the Planning Commissioners wished to take part in planting trees at Clean -Up Day, Highway 55 Rental would donate an additional tree per Commissioner. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Weir presented a brief summary of Council activities since the February Commission meeting. The Council recognized Police Reserve volunteers; discussed regulations for oversized accessory structures, and will address these regulations as part of the Comp Plan implementation work; extended fire service agreement with Maple Plain; accepted plans and specs for the Hamel Road reconstruction project; discussed the long-term financial situation with Ehlers; approved Stauber with PC recommendations, and urged the developer to leave the possibility for additional units to the south; approved of a very ambitious workplan for updating ordinances in order to implement the recently approved Comp Plan; discussed TMDL of phosphorus into Lake Sarah; and set up an LIC Workshop for April 29th , as well as an Open House for improvements at the CR116 & Hwy 55 intersection for April 22" d 4. Planning Department Report Benetti noted three applications the City had received , which hopefully can be heard at the April Commission meeting: a site plan review, amended CUP, and lot combination for Walter G. Anderson; a CUP for an addition to an accessory structure at Skyrock Farm; and a sign variance for Holy Name Church. He said the department had also completed interviews for the new Planning Assistant, and that person should be in place in early April. 5. Approval of February 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes Motion by Verbick, seconded by Litts to approve the February 12 minutes, with two changes noted by Commissioner Verbick. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Nolan). 1 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes 6. Ordinance Amendment — Section 815 — Pertaining to regulations related to signage. Public Hearing - TABLED from the February 12, 2008 regular meeting. Finke presented a brief staff report. He stated the ordinance approaches three primary topics: 1) dynamic signs; 2) off -premise signs; and 3) additional signage for 4-sided architecture. He said the staff report explained the three topics. He noted that the scope of the amendment was limited because the City would be looking at this ordinance again in a few months as part of updating the zoning code for consistency with the updated Comp Plan. R. Reid inquired how many existing dynamic signs were within the City. Finke noted there are two existing signs which the regulations may apply to along Highway 55. There are also electronic gas price signs at some of the gas stations in the City, although these signs are likely not to change more than once every five minutes, even with gas prices raising the way they are. Simons inquired if it would be easy to decide which existing buildings should be considered four-sided, and which would not be eligible for a bonus. Finke stated that if an applicant from an existing building requested additional signage for the back of an existing building, staff could examine the planning files and look at architectural design to determine if four-sided architecture was intended. Staff should be able to fetter out the people who are just trying for additional signage. V. Reid inquired if the major concern on the dynamic signage was safety. Finke stated that is was a major portion of the concern, because the signs can be terribly distracting to drivers. Verbick stated the safety concerns are very legitimate, but there is also an issue with visual pollution. The City should have reasonable guidelines for this. R. Reid said when she passes the signs along I394 and 1494, they are extremely distracting. She wished the League would come up with some data on the safety issues. Public Hearing opened at 7:26 p.m. Jeff Pederson (Highway 55 Rental — 225 Highway 55) stated they have had an approved and permitted message sign for 10 years. Through agreement with the City, they post public messages for the City and other community groups. He said they believe the sign is not the type being described and is not as distracting. They are requesting the sign be considered a grandfathered community sign and be allowed to continue for the benefit of the community and Highway 55 Rental. Verbick stated the signs at Highway 55 Rental and the Medina Entertainment Center have been in existence and part of the community for a long time. She believes the draft allows the signs to be grandfathered in, which is reasonable. 2 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Finke stated that something which is non -conforming would be allowed to continue, but could not intensify. The signs wouldn't be allowed to change more often, flash more, or be increased in size. However, under the draft, they wouldn't be required to come into compliance with the regulations. Pederson stated that he would rather it not be a non -conforming sign. Verbick inquired if there was some reasonable way to allow the sign to be called out as continuing under a previous regulation and not be called non -conforming. Finke stated that the sign would be non -conforming. The sign would be changing more often than a sign would be allowed to under the updated ordinance. He stated it should be called what it is, but that he would confer with legal staff if there was any other way to deal with existing signs. V. Reid inquired how a sign that was destroyed by a storm would be handled. Benetti stated that the new sign would have to comply with the updated standards, or they would have to apply for a variance. Finke said he believed that statute now allows for a replacement of a non -conforming use that is destroyed by a storm as long as a permit is pulled within a certain amount of time. The Commission had a similar discussion with the wetland ordinance, and legal staff stated the non -conformity could be built back to its original state. He stated that he would confirm with the City attorney as to whether this was true. Bob Raskob (Medina Recreations — 500 Highway 55) stated that their sign had gone up in 1999. They have six businesses in the building and employ 113 employees. He said they have to let the public know what they offer, and the sign does a good job of that. He stated that he is unaware of any complaints on the sign. He believes it changes every 30 seconds. He stated that he wishes for it to be allowed to continue as it is, because the sign is doing a good job as it is. R. Reid inquired why the bonus only applied to the Urban Commercial district. Finke stated that it was thought this would be the most likely place for four-sided architecture to occur. However, Commissioners could recommend it in other districts. Public Hearing closed at 7:38 p.m. Motion by R. Reid, seconded by V. Reid to recommend approval of the ordinance as written to allow existing signs to continue as is and also with further research on other ways to handle existing signs. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Nolan). 3 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes 7. Ordinance Amendment — Section 828.43 — Pertaining to Regulations Related to Wetlands. Continued Public Hearing Finke presented the staff report. He discussed the changes made to the draft since the February Commission meeting and suggested specific topics which the Planning Commission may wish to discuss. Public Hearing continued at 7:50 p.m. Paul Robinson (Bancor Group, Medina Country Club) stated they believe the Minnehaha Creek watershed rules give enough wetland protection. They appreciate the maximum ratio and the matrixes described by the staff report. He said he is concerned the setback is still too large and he suggests more flexibility on the minimum buffer width. He stated a preserve requires a buffer and setback of 40-50 feet, which doesn't allow a great deal of flexibility and is still more than the largest Minnehaha buffer. He urged adding flexibility to setbacks and sliding the minimums down a bit to allow additional flexibility. He stated that using buffer averaging, the City doesn't lose buffer because the narrower portions are made up for elsewhere. Abdhish Bhaysar (2105 Chestnut Road) stated he was thinking about proactive ways to protect wetlands. The wetland ordinance is reactive, not proactive. He stated he had two suggestions: 1) Sequestering large portions of property for a set amount of time (using grant money) in order to protect wildlife; and 2) incentivizing people to deal with their runoff, perhaps through tax credits. He stated buffer zones a few feet wide aren't effective for wildlife. Public Hearing closed at 7:57 p.m. V. Reid inquired if a small addition to a home would trigger the buffer requirements. Finke stated that most work within 100 feet of a wetland which requires a permit is likely to trigger the 20 feet buffer requirements. The 50 cu. yd./5000 sq. ft. threshold is fairly low and will likely be triggered if there is land alteration/excavation. Verbick stated she regrets the compromises that have already been made to the draft. The Commission has worried only about people's rights and not the broader context of the environment, water quality and wildlife. We constantly impact the earth's ability to recharge and refresh our limited water supply. She regrets that we haven't had a long-term view to protect not only the public good, but for species habitat, species corridors and other things that are so essential. She stated that hopefully this is a compromise that can move forward without being further reduced or compromised. Simons stated that he appreciates the comments on how important it is to look at the ordinance from the more macro view. He said there had been quite a bit of compromise, but the real question is how reasonable was the starting point before the compromising began. He stated that he is very favorable of the flexibility that has been built in. He said he is concerned that the minimums still seem higher than they ought to be, and that additional flexibility should 4 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes be built into the setbacks. Simons stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed buffers are well tested, and this current draft exceeds those standards, even without considering the setbacks. R. Reid stated she appreciates the staffs efforts at integrating additional flexibility. She stated the ordinance has addressed her main concerns and it is ready to move forward. Litts stated the setback from the buffer is very important, whether it is 15 feet on all sides, or some lower number. She said this is an ordinance the City can be proud of. Pederson stated the staff did an excellent job listening to public and Commission comments. He said he believes the setback should be reduced to 10 feet, but is not willing to argue about the additional five feet if the Commission is supportive of 15. He stated that he is comfortable with the draft as it stands. V. Reid stated the draft is great, and that it is amazing that staff can listen to all the varying comments and come back with a draft that approaches most of them. She inquired if a very small setback should exist for all structures, so that people can paint and maintain them on the side facing the buffer. Motion by Verbick, seconded by R. Reid to recommend approval of the ordinance along with the Commission's comments. Simons inquired if there was a consensus on the Commission to recommend that flexibility be added to the setback requirements of the ordinance. Verbick suggested that Simons vote no on the recommendation and state that as his reason. Simons stated that he will vote no in order to show his support for flexibility being allow for setbacks in addition to the buffers. Motion carries (Opposed: Simons; Absent: Nolan). Motion by Simons, seconded by V. Reid to recommend that the ordinance incorporate setback flexibility, with an absolute minimum, similar to the language used regarding buffer width. Finke noted that flexibility in setbacks will be much more difficult to formalize and administer. Buffers are described through a legal description and can be shown graphically much easier, while setbacks will be significantly more difficult. He suggested additional buffer flexibility, perhaps by reducing the minimum buffer requirements, rather than trying to define some sort of flexible setbacks. Simons stated that there could certainly be innovative ways to accomplish it. Motion carries (Opposed: Verbick and R. Reid; Absent: Nolan) 5 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes 8. Abdhish and Mary Bhaysar — 2105 Chestnut Road (PID 15-118-23-24-0003) — Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 8,400 sq. ft. accessory structure in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district. Finke delivered a brief staff report. He stated the City Council had discussed accessory structures in the RR district broadly during their March 3 meeting, but had not directed staff to prepare ordinance amendments. He noted the Comp Plan implementation workplan shows RR regulations being completed early in the process, so the Commission will likely be discussing RR regulations, including accessory structure regulations, early in the summer. He stated the applicant had integrated some architectural elements into the design since the February Commission meeting, including windows, cupolas and overhangs. The updated plans also identify an access drive as requested by the fire marshal. Finke noted that the applicant has discussed a possible alternate location for the structure which would be more screened from the east. He stated that staff had not fully reviewed the alternate location and it was not part of the Commission packet. Pederson stated staff could present the alternate location at the Council level if it seems like it would work well, but the Commission probably shouldn't discuss it, since it hadn't been reviewed yet. R. Reid stated she would likely not support the alternate location if it would impact a lot of trees. Abdhish Bhaysar (Applicant, 2105 Chestnut Road) stated they had taken the comments from the Planning Commission and worked with their neighbors in an attempt to make the architecture more pleasing and more like a barn. Additionally, 8-9 ft. Black Hill Spruce trees will be planted to the east. He stated they have offered to lower the height of the building another two feet to show their willingness to work with the Commission and neighbors. Additionally, they could move the structure to the west farther into the woods which would screen it even more. This would require removal of numerous trees, but they could save the largest maples. He said his family had offered to purchase the Turnquist's property adjacent to their property line if the Turnquists ever subdivided their property. The proposed structure is complementary to their home and is made of steel and concrete. The siding is of high quality paint with a 20 year warrantee. The siding and roofing steel is of higher quality than was approved on the Schleeter and Evanson barn last year. He said they had moved to Medina for the City's openness, freedom to do things with their property, freedom to raise animals. He stated they were aware of the ordinances when they chose to move to Medina and they are not trying to do anything that hasn't been done before, or anything that is harmful to Medina. Simons inquired which location the applicant preferred. Bhaysar stated the alternative location would require the loss of more trees than they wished. However, if it kept the peace, they would be willing to place it there. T. Cody Turnquist (2000 Chestnut Road) thanked Bhaysar for spending the time on the new design. There have been improvements, but they are still concerned with the overall height. 6 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes He stated they preferred the alternate location because it hid the structure from all portions of their property. He said they were afraid of all of these `super -structures' being built for purposes outside of the character of Medina. Jim Lane (2605 Hamel Road) stated his comments didn't pertain to this application, per se, but rather with the City's overall regulations pertaining to accessory structures in the rural area. He stated this is the fourth application for these massive structures and the Commission and Council have basically punted. He urged the Commission to think conceptually about accessory structures. They should bear some relationship to the primary structure on the parcel. A primary use of 5000 sq. ft. shouldn't have an accessory structure twice its size. The Commission shouldn't let four more of these massive structures bite us. He urged the Commission, regardless of what they decide on this application, to recommend that the Council use its authority to remedy this problem proactively. Verbick stated that being proactive is good. However, you can't always anticipate what the next generation thinks is a `reasonable use of property.' Going back a generation, it was quite common for a house to be quite modest and the accessory structures to be much larger. These things should be kept in mind as we go forward. Pederson stated he believes the City should regulate size of accessory structures in the future. The applicant has done a great job trying to break it up. He suggested different materials on the bottom, perhaps concrete. It meets the requirements, and the plantings are nice. He said if staff believes the structure should be moved to the alternate location, and the Council agrees, he wouldn't have a problem with that. Litts said she agrees that it is a very large. She prefers the secondary site, not only because it is more hidden, but also because it opens up potential pasture area. The structure does look better. It may be nice to differentiate materials, but this may get too expensive and not practical. R. Reid stated that these things always end up looking larger than you think. The new design looks like a barn and has been improved. The structure will not be visible from the road. She stated the offer to purchase the property is generous. She said she would not oppose this barn, but definitely thinks the accessory structure regulations should be looked at. Maybe it is a square foot multiplier. She doesn't want these all over, but this one won't be seen. Simons stated the secondary location may have a marginal benefit. He said the Commission will be discussing this issue in a few months, and it will likely be fairly complicated, with all sorts of formulas to consider. Benetti inquired if the Commission were comfortable with the red color scheme. Pederson stated the red may make the structure seem larger than a neutral color would. Verbick inquired if the Commission should get to the level of regulating color schemes. She inquired if the applicant really wished for a red barn on the property. 7 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT March 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Bhaysar said most of their house is white with yellow accents. However, in the interior, there are grey and red steel accents. He said the Commission seemed to want a structure that looked more like a barn, and they thought the red may help with that. Christian Dean (Applicant's architect) stated that the design is based off a traditional barn and was designed to appease neighbor and Commission concerns. Verbick said she wouldn't regulate the color scheme, although she may think differently if it were orange with purple polka dots. Motion by Simons, seconded by Verbick to recommend approval of the CUP along with conditions of staff report, an added condition requiring the trees as shown, and a recommendation to have the Council review the alternate site. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Nolan and V. Reid). 9. Future Meeting Information Benetti stated that the Hwy55/CR116 Open House on April 22 was meant as an invitation for the Commissioners who wished to attend. However, the City Council wanted all Commissioners to attend the Low Impact Design workshop on April 29th. He noted that the Commission may also wish to use the opportunity for an additional meeting regarding some of the ordinance updates. Finke noted the Commission should call a special meeting for the LID workshop, since the Commission will have a quorum. He stated this would allow the Commission to also meet after the LID workshop for additional agenda items if necessary. Motion by Verbick, seconded by Litts to call a Special Planning Commission Meeting on April 29, 2008. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Nolan and V. Reid). 10. Adjourn: Motion by Verbick, seconded by R. Reid to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. (Absent: Nolan and V. Reid). 8 Agenda Item: 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti DATE: April 1, 2008 MEETING: April 8, 2008 Planning Commission SUBJ: Holy Name Church Sign Variance (155 County Road 24) Review Deadline Application Received: March 10, 2008 60-day Review Deadline: May 9, 2008 Overview of Request Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church has requested a variance from the setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance in order to construct a new monument sign at the corner of County Road 24 and Brockton Lane. The applicant requests approval to locate the sign 5 ft. from both the east and north property lines instead of the 10 ft. required by ordinance. The applicant also proposes to replace another sign on the property, but no variances are sought for this sign. Section 815.31 of the City Code allows the City Council to grant variances from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance only if a number of standards have been met. The applicant seeks the variance for two main reasons. First, as is expected for any discussion about signage, visibility of the sign is a concern. Additionally, the applicant believes the variance would minimize impacts on existing oak trees near the sign location (see applicant letter). The applicant letter also states that the proposed location reduces the amount of grading necessary to install the sign. However, staff asked the applicant to quantify how much grading disturbance would be reduced and the applicant did not reply to the request. Engineering staff estimates that any reduction would be negligible. Site Details 155 County Road 24 is currently zoned Suburban Residential (SR). The proposed variance is being requested for a sign on the corner of County Road 24 and Brockton Lane. The existing sign on this corner is to be replaced by the new sign for which the variance is sought. The proposed sign is in the same location as the existing sign, 5 feet from both the east and north property line. There are a number of significant trees near the proposed location. The City holds standard perimeter easements around the edge of the property for drainage and utility purposes. The proposed variance would encroach within the 10 foot easement along County Road 24. Currently, no utilities are located within the easement. However, the City has made it a consistent policy to not allow permanent structures and improvements within easements in the chance that need arises in the future. If the City would ultimately approve the variance request, staff recommends that an encroachment agreement is required so that the applicant understands the sign must be removed if the City has need to utilize the easement. Ordinance Regulations Section 815.09 describes regulations for signage in residential zoning districts. While residential uses are obviously the main use within these districts, certain non-residential uses (such as churches, schools, cemeteries, public buildings, commercial horse facilities, etc.) are allowed within residential districts as well. The sign ordinance does not describe alternate regulations for these uses, so they must abide by the district regulations. Monument signs up to 30 sq. ft. in sign area are allowed within residential districts "at the entrance of a residential subdivision" and signage is allowed for home occupations, but only up to 8 sq. ft. in size. The ordinance is mostly silent on regulations for the non-residential uses described above. However, staff has interpreted the ordinance to allow non-residential uses to be allowed 30 sq. ft. monument signs for permitted "entrances" (roadway accesses) as well. Monument signs within residential districts must be set back "10 feet from the curb or right-of- way." The ten -foot setback within Residential districts is the smallest required sign setback in any zoning district. This setback language is a bit different from all other setback requirements of the sign ordinance because the other requirements reference "property lines." The alternate language for residential districts is meant to approach situations where a property line extends to the centerline of a roadway (as is fairly common in the rural residential district). If the setback were measured from the property line in these situations, signs could be placed directly on the side of the road (actually they could technically be placed within the roadway). The added language regarding a "curb" helps protect against that by situation. The language should therefore be understood to mean that the required setback is the greater of: 1) 10 feet from the right-of-way; or 2) 10 feet from the curb. County Road 24 and Brockton Lane are dedicated right-of-ways, so the setback is measured off of that point. The proposed sign does meet size and height requirements of the sign ordinance, and is designed in a way that maxes out both the 30 sq. ft. maximum area and the 6 ft. maximum height. Variance Standards for Sign Ordinance In order for the City to grant a variance to the sign ordinance, it must meet all of the following conditions (staff opinions follow each condition): 1) Because of the physical surroundings, shape, topography or condition of the property involved, a hardship to the applicant would result if the strict letter of the ordinance was carried out. The applicant makes two main claims for a hardship: 1) the location of public street signs within along County Road 24 decrease the visibility of a sign placed in a way that meets ordinance regulations; and 2) placing the sign in a way that meets ordinance regulations may impact nearby significant oak trees. Staff contacted the Plymouth street department who were receptive to the idea of making small adjustments to the location of the two street signs along County Road 24 in order to improve the visibility of the sign and increase safety of vehicles stopping suddenly at Brockton Lane. Because the street signs are small and fairly far from the intersection, a relatively small location adjustment changes the relative sight lines quite a bit. 2 Preserving significant trees is certainly an honorable pursuit and is also a purpose within the City's ordinances. In this case, the applicant claims that the City's wish to regulate the location of signage runs against the wish to retain trees. If the applicant ultimately would need to remove a tree, it would be allowed under the tree preservation ordinance. Staff contacted a forester to discuss the likelihood of the tree being killed by placing the sign as required by ordinance. Charlie Evanson of Three Rivers Park District stated that the best way to avoid impacting a tree is to keep all activity well outside of its dripline. He stated that this is, unfortunately, not always a reasonable course of action. He stated that in his experience a significant oak tree of this size has a good survival rate unless more than 1/4 of the area of its full dripline is impacted. Mr. Evanson recommended snow fencing off the area so that only machine operators are kept aware of the tree and state that impacts to trees arise almost as often from unnecessary surface impact than the actual excavation work. Staff believes the portion of the dripline impacted by placing the sign per ordinance is lower than 3/4 and the impact is not changed significantly by adjusting the sign location by five feet. If the true purpose is to prevent impacts on the trees, various other alternatives would better meet this purpose. Obviously the sign could be moved to an alternate location away from the stand of trees. The applicant proposes the largest possible sign allowed under the ordinance. Altering the sign design could allow a larger distance from the trees while still meeting setback requirements. It is also of note that the tree preservation ordinance would allow removal of the tree if it ultimately were killed. 2) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the applicant's property and not generally applicable to the other property within the same zoning district Staff does not believe the conditions discussed above are unique to the applicant's property. Necessary street signage throughout the district could possibly block a property owner's preferred advertising sign location along certain sight lines. Additionally, it is not unique for a property owner's preferred advertising sign location to be near existing significant trees. Placing the sign so that setback regulations are met would place the sign within 6 feet of existing significant trees. While this potentially may impact the significant trees, the variance of 5 feet does not significantly change the portion of the root system within the full dripline which is impacted. As stated above, other alternatives would better preserve the trees and still meet setback requirements. 3) The hardship arises from the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by persons presently or formerly having any interest in the property Staff does not believe that the asserted hardship described above arise because of activity by current or former owners of the property. 4) A granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the area which the property is located Staff does not believe the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property. The proposed variance would place the sign within a drainage and utility easement. Although no utilities are located within the easement today, the City's policy is to avoid allowing improvements within easements in case they are needed in the future. 3 5) The variance is not a request to permit a type of Sign which otherwise is prohibited by this ordinance. The applicant proposes a monument sign, which is permitted in the district. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance. The conditions which lead to the asserted hardship are not unique to this parcel, so staff does not believe all of the variance standards are met. Various alternatives exist to help mitigate the applicant's concerns. Adjusting the location of the street signs in Plymouth and redesigning the proposed sign could improve the visibility, meet setback requirements and stay further from the existing significant trees. Because the conditions are not unique to this parcel, staff would suggest a broader discussion about sign setback requirements if the Commission is apt to recommend approval of the ordinance. If a setback requirements are determined to constitute a hardship in this case, it would likely do so in many other situations as well. If the Planning Commission believes the variance standards are met, staff recommends that Findings of Fact are provided for the City Council. Section 815.31 allows for the City to apply conditions on variances if they are approved. If the Commission recommends approval, staff suggests the following conditions: 1) The variance allows the installation of a monument sign a minimum of five feet from the north and east property lines in the location shown on the plans received April 1, 2008. 2) The applicant acknowledges that the proposed sign location is within an existing drainage and utility easement, and that the City may require removal of the sign at its discretion. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement to describe responsibilities and liability of the encroachment. 3) The applicant shall install fencing at the limit of construction in order to protect nearby significant trees from inadvertent impacts. 4) Except as otherwise noted above, the applicant shall abide by all ordinance regulations and permitting requirements. 5) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the Variance application. Attachments 1. Location map 2. "Site plan" dated April 1, 2008 3. Applicant letter 4. Applicant Powerpoint presentation 4 Location Map Subject Address: 155 County Road 24 i coaRTY i r zoor— bk44 FAN BOTH Bec=erai LN. u.kNt� cautiTY FOLD Vf NARRATIVE VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant and Owner: Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church 155 County Road 24 Medina Minnesota 55391 Contact Person: Dan Garry Parish Administrator 155 County Road 24 Medina Minnesota 55391 Phone: (763) 745-3480 Project: Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church proposes to replace two (2) identification signs on their property with two (2) new signs at approximately the same location. One (1) sign is located opposite Holy Name Drive and County Road 24 in front of the historic church. The other sign is located near County Road 24 and Brockton Lane North. Variance Requested: The proposed sign at County Road 24 and Brockton Lane North is proposed to be located five feet (5') from the County Road 24 property line and five feet (5') from the Brockton Lane North property line rather than the 10' required by the Ordinance. Reasons for the Variance Request: 1. The applicant desires to preserve an existing group of oak and basswood trees on the site. Conformance with the 10' setback may necessitate removal of one or more of the existing trees. The proposed five foot (5') setback will reduce the amount of excavation near the roots and help in the preservation of the trees. 2. There is an existing slope on the site. The applicant desires to minimize the amount of grading required for the project. 3. The visibility of the sign is important for visitors to be able to identify the entrance to the property. 4. The variance meets the six (6) criteria listed on the checklist. Attachments: The following information is attached: 1. Aerial photograph of area showing context and property lines. 2. Site plan showing project location, property lines, existing trees, topography and all existing conditions. 3. Proposed sign plans. 4. Application and checklist.