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.