Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.21.87 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR APRIL 21, 1987 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES March 17, 1987 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. Variance Request for Lighted Sign from Christian Life Church 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 P.M. Variance Request for Sign Over Public Right of Way from Schmidtke Fuels 5. DISCUSSION Front Yard Setbacks Developed Neighborhoods 6. DISCUSSION Revised Entrance Plan FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center 7. FARMINGTON HILLS Preliminary Plat 8. DISCUSSION Potential Request for Special Meeting to Review Preliminary Plats of Dakota County Estates Fourth and Silver Springs Additions 9. DISCUSSION Robert Alich Conditional Use Request AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1987 1. Call to Order 7:00 P.M. 2. Approve Minutes March 17, 1987 3 Public Hearing Christian Life Church Highway 50 The sign ordinance adopted in February of 1986 specifically regulates illuminated signs as follows: Section 4- 3- 2(A)10. Illuminated Signs: Except for temporary signs, illuminated signs shall be allowed in B and I Districts. Such signs shall be illuminated only steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely at the sign, or internal to it, etc. Section 4- 3- 2(A)16. Church Signs: On- premise freestanding and attached church signs shall be permitted in any district not to exceed seventy five (75) square feet per side. Section 4- 3- 2(B)1. Illuminated Signs: Illuminated signs shall not be permitted within the "A "C" and "R" Districts. However, the ordinance suggests some doubt with the following: Section 4- 3- 2(A)8. Public Service Information Signs: Shall be allowed by conditional use in all districts either on pylons or on the building face. Such sign area devoted to this shall be limited to thirty two (32) square feet in area, conform with set back requirements in each district, and may be illuminated. Public Service Information Signs are not defined but it is safe to presume that they do not include church signs since church signs are specifically addressed. The church sign may be 7 x 10 feet in size whereas the Public Service Information signs are limited to approximately 5 x 6 feet in size. If the Commission agrees with staff that two sign categories are involved, then it becomes simple to evaluate the variance request as listed in Section 4 -3 -9 Appeals which says: Request for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship. There are no criteria for evaluating hardship in the Sign Ordinance similar to those listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Church has indicated in the request that an illuminated sign would help identify the driveway for persons coming to evening meetings. This does not appear to be valid since the sign is at a considerable distance from the driveway entrance. It does not seem likely that the sign would be any more helpful than the light emanating from the church itself would be. In looking at the request, it appears that the purpose of the sign would be to advertise the church in the evening, much as a billboard might be used to promote a particular event. However, if the Commission were to consider granting the variance, it would appear appropriate to place limitations on the hours that the sign could be illuminated. Recommendation Deny the request since undue hardship can not be proven. 4. Public Hearing Schmidtke Fuels Inc. Elm Street Once again the recent sign ordinance addresses the issue directly as follows: Section 4- 3- 2(B)7. Public Right of Ways: No sign shall be upon or overhang any public right of way, with the exception of B -2 Districts where an overhang of fifteen inches (15 is possible. The variance request of 15" will place the sign 30" or 2i' into the right of way. The hardship is based upon existing investment in wiring and the sign mount which have been in place for years. Another aspect of the hardship is that a revised location could interfere with traffic flow in the service station driveway. In addition, the Commission has granted a variance for an existing business building within three blocks of this site for a sign that does not observe the setback requirements of the ordinance. The grounds for that variance was that the structure itself did not observe setback requirements. Recommendation Approve the variance requested for a 15" overhang of the public right of way to allow use of the existing standard and wiring since conformance with the regulation would require an unnecessary relocation of existing facilities. 5. Discussion Front Yard Setbacks Developed Neighborhoods See attached memo. 6. Discussion Revised Entrance Plan FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center The attached drawing has been forwarded to the Commission by the Zoning Administrator for discussion since a similar entrance had been discouraged by the Commission when Whispering River Plat was approved. The staff has looked at the proposal in the plan and on the ground and can find no reason to stand in the way of implementation. The Whispering River question was raised more because of internal circulation than proximity to the intersection of Division and Spruce Streets. An entrance across the road would have produced a dead end within the Whispering River Plat. In this proposal, the entrance will facilitate movement of traffic directly to County Road 31 and leave enough space for a five car "back up" at the Spruce /Division intersection. The location also works since the headlights from automobile traffic leaving the Center will shine onto the interior street in Whispering River rather than into any of the townhomes built into this plat. Recommendation Forward the site plan to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. 7. Discussion Farmington Hills Preliminary Plat Mr. Scarborough has found an investor who can see that the plat is implemented. The plan is identical to the one approved by the City Council and the developer has requested approval of both the pre- liminary and final plat with the understanding that the engineer will certify that the final will be identical in all respects to the pre- liminary plat. The only difference that staff will be implementing is a requirement that all property owners within 350 feet will be notified of the public hearing held by City Council. Distribution to concerned agencies has not been requested since the plat has not changed. Recommendation Forward the plat to the City Council with a recommendation that a public hearing is advertised and that the plat should be approved. 8. Discussion Dakota County Estates Fourth and Silver Springs Both Mr. Benedict and Mr. Stegmaier have discussed with staff their intention to proceed with preliminary plats for these developments. Since both have an eye on recent increases in interest rates, they would like to operate as efficiently as possible. Staff has suggested that a special meeting could be held between the regular meetings provided that two weeks is allocated to request feedback from various associated agencies and for a close look by the staff. Both of these plats will also follow the recommendation drafted in the revised Zoning Ordinance to notify all property owners within 350 feet of the development. Mr. Stegmaier indicated that he would be attending the meeting. Recommendation Make it clear to the developers in attendance that the plats will not be discussed by the Commission until all of the staff comments and referals have been returned. 9. Discussion Robert Alich Conditional Use Request See copy of letter to Mr. Alich. fq Charles Tooker Planner CT /mh