Planning Commission Agenda 03-06-2001
.
Members:
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - Mareh 6, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Dick Frie. Robhie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Ilerbst
Stafr:
1.
2.
,.,
~.
4.
5.
.
6.
..
.I err <fNeill. Fred Patch, Steve Crrittman and Lori Kraemer
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held fehruary 6, 2001.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comlnents.
Continued Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of a Development Stage PUD and preliminary
plat to accommodate a 63 unit townhouse project in Klein Farms Estates 2nd Addition.
Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest.
Puhlie Hearing - Consideration or an amendment to the zoning ordinance providing f()r
increased free-standing sign height and area. Applicant: Jacob I loldings/Denny Hecker
Automotive Group.
7. Update on Walnut Street/Sunny Fresh parking.
8. Adjourn.
-1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGtJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - Fehruary 6, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten. Robbie Smith and Council Liaison Clint
Ilerbst
Members Absent:
Richard Carlson and Roy Popilek
Staff Present:
Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch, Steve Grittman
1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
2. Approval of minutes of the re!!ular Ineeting held January 2, 2001.
^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TilE MINUTES OF TI-lE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2001. Motion carried unanimously.
Dick Frie noted that Councilmember Herbst had been absent the prior two meetings and
that the Planning Commission needs his regular input. Councilmember Herbst noted that
he views his role as Liaison as very important but noted that on occasion things come up
that interfere with his volunteering as Council Liaison. Dick Frie recognized that the
meetings are not mandatory and he expressed appreciation for Herbst's involvement and
requested that Herbst contact staff in advance if he is not going to make the meeting.
Herbst noted that he will try to notify staff in advance, but he docs not always know until
the last minute ifhe will not attend. The size orthe agenda and the relative importance of
the items will influence whether or not he attends.
"
.) .
Consideration of addin!! items to the a!!enda.
Robbie Smith had a question regarding Cabin Fever entertainment. This was placed as
item 8 on the agenda.
Clint Ilerbst would like to hear comments on the overtlow parking at Sunny Fresh. This
was placed as item 9 on the agenda.
Update on new signage at the law office by Fred Patch. This was placed as itenl lOon
the agenda.
4.
Citizens eOlnments. None t()rthcoming.
-1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/0 I
5.
Consideration of a Development Staee PU D to permit the expansion of a bus service and
sales bcilitv. Applicant: llo!.!lund Bus Company.
Steve Cirittman reported that Hoglund Bus has applied for a Development Stage PUD
approval continuing their proposal fiJr an expansion of their l~1Cilities between Oakwood
Drive and Interstate 94. The site plan which has been submitted proposes a 1 O.6XO square
foot building addition. with a significant amount of paving added to the site in the areas
of traffic circulation and parking. Cireen areas are designated on the site plan, and a
number of trees are proposed along the west and southwest boundaries. ^ gravel bus
staging area is located to the west of the building addition, and the bulk of the bus sales
display area on the cast portion of the site would remain grass and unchanged.
The layout generally complies with discussions which staff has had with the property
owners. A few details should be added to the plan to conform to those discussions, as
well as common PUD standards:
.
Steve noted that the applicant is asking that the curb requirement be waved
however certain areas such as driveway throats and parking stalls should have
curb stops installed. ^ few of the areas are noted on the plan. These areas should
be delineated and striped. Holly Klein, Hoglund Bus, indicated that they
supported installation of trees but that they did not want to put curb stops in due to
the problems created for plowing. Steve Grittman noted that the temporary curb
was proposed in lieu of more expensive curb and that they are necessary to
channel traffic.
. Clint Herbst asked why they are wrapping trees around the front, why are they
putting trees along the freeway. It does not make sense to screen the sales area.
Grittman noted that the intent is not to screen and the trees will be located some
distance from each other. In addition, the applicant supports planting of trees at
the locations proposed.
. Rod Dragsten stated that the bus staging area on the eastern boundary should not
be covered with a gravel surf~lee and should be left as a grassy area. lie felt that
the curbing should be put in as proposed.
Robbie Smith asked for a clarification on curbing. Why are we not requiring full
installation? Steve Grittman noted that the discussion previously established the
hlct that the site will transition to a future use and that it docs not make sense to
make a big investment in curbing given the potential redevelopment. Making a
large investment today could deter the change-over to another use. Clint Herbst
noted that thelact that there is minimal use of certain drive areas by the public
could be reason to justify elimination or modification of the curb requirement.
-2-
.
.
.
Planning ConHllission M inutcs - 02/06/0 I
Rohhie Slnith noted that the entrances could he spruced up with curbing rather
than curb stops. I Ie explained that you need to create a nice looking view from the
right-ot-:"way and that curhing should he required under the pun. Robbie
suggested installation of curbing at access points and at curb stops throughout the
rest of the site.
.
Holly Klein noted that they would see to it that the hus storage area is mowed.
After discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED
BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THf DEVl::IDPMENT STACiE PUD WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.
Additional tree planting throughout the property as identitied in the Planner"s report.
...,
Parking stall striping per thc site plan with modifications as requested by staff.
3.
Drivcway entrances be installed with curb and guttcr from existing curh along roadway
to a point within the property equal to the front yard setback in a 8-3 District (30').
Curh stops to he installed in other areas as defined in the planncr's report.
4.
A drainage plan must be provided to the City Engineer for review and comment.
Drainage plan to properly acconHllodate run-olT from nearby hotcl.
5.
Large grassy area identified for bus display/storage to remain a grassy area. The owncr
should maintain grass levels in compliance with puhlic nuisance ordinance.
MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT TI IE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSI,:!)
IS CONSISTENT WITH TilE COMPREHFNSIVE PLAN. REDUCTION IN SITE
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED IN RECOGNITION TIIA T
REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE MAY OCCUR RELATIVELY SOON. IN
ADDITION. THE PUBLIC DOES NOT REGULARLY USE OR VIEW AREAS
WI-IERF CURB AND PA VINCi ARE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THIS PLAN. Motion
carried unanimously.
6. Consideration of a Development Staf.!e PUD to accommodate a 63 unit townhouse proiect
in Klein Farms Estates 2nd Addition. Applicant: Eaf.!Ie Crest.
Steve C1rittman reviewed his report noting that Eagle Crest received a Concept PU [)
approval at the recent Planning Commission and City Council meetings. They have
submitted a Development Stage PUD plan based on that approval. StafThas had the
opportunity to review the plan and makes the following comments:
1.
The easterly access road should he moved to the east boundary and loop around the end
units_ In this \vay, the entire eastern half of the project could be served by a continuous
loop road without the dead-end section. This is an issue for City trash removal service.
-3-
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/0 I
as well as for general circulation. This ehangc should not result in a loss of units, since
units 45-47 could be shifted \vest slightly.
J
The western-most driveway should be continued around to loop back and connect with
the westerly access road. This will avoid a long dead-end driveway and permit the
narrower pavement widths proposed. The driveway should be moved slightly to the \vest
to allow for adequate backing movements out of the garage and driveway areas. A
distance of 42 feet from face of garage to edge of pavement is suggested. This driveway
may be 18 feet in width if this change is made.
3.
The two dead-end interior driveways in the quad-unit area should be continued to
intersect with Farmstead Drive. The spacing of buildings in this area should be a
minimum of 60 feet from face of garage to f~lCe of garage. The driveway widths of 18
reet would be adequate in this arrangement to pennit backing and restricted access to the
residents and service vehicles.
'1
"-t.
All driveways and roads in the project must be paved and curbed. The only exception to
curbing is for the 20 to 22 foot long driveways which lead directly into thc garages from
the access driveways. Except for the 18 foot wide driveways specifically Illentioned in
points 2 and 3 above, a II other private streets and drives must be a m in imum of 24 feet in
width, face of curb to face of curb.
5.
Provide additional visitor parking spaced throughout the dcvelopment at a minimum ratio
of one space per three units, a total extra parking supply of at least 21 spaces. Because
narrower private streets do not accommodate on-street parking, these spaces are
necessary to accommodate overllow from the unit driveways \vhich provide the only
other visitor parking supply.
6. Provide a 5 foot wide cone rete sidewalk along Farmstead as shown on the plan from the
trail connection on the east to the west boundary of the property at Edmonson Avenue.
Although the primary pedestrian access currently leads to the south through Klein Farms
Estates 3,,1 Addition, future connection to other land uses to the east is a probability. If
that area develops with commercial services, it is likely that residents of this projeet will
want to walk in that direction. -fhe applicants had previously diseussed with StatTthe
possibility of terminating the sidewalk at their western-most driveway instead of
extending it all the way to Edmonson Avenue.
7. Significantly enhance landscaping within the foundation planting areas around the
buildings. The current plan shows a per-unit planting of only four shrubs around the
entry sidewalk. Mueh more planting around the building is suggested where none is now
proposed.
8. Enhance planting along the Farmstead Drivcexposure with a butTer planting similar to
that provided by Staff as an exhibit to this report. This butTer is designed to provide an
.'open" sereen for the rear yard spaces which face the public roadway.
.
9.
Enhance planting in the bulTeryard area along the north boundary. One of the
-4-
Planning COl11mission Minutes - 02/06/01
.
considerations for the private street encroaching into the required butTer area is
additional butTer and screen plantings in that area. The proposal relics entirely on
existing plantings and should be strengthened. For the portion orthe bufferyard where
the road encroaches, an additional eight deciduous trees and 50 large shrubs would help
to increase the butTer density.
10.
Provide increased plant sizes over the east portion of the butTeryard. The grading plan
shows a SWede in this area which is about 3 feet in depth. The plants should be increased
in size to accommodate the require buffering effect. The ?Oning ordinance currently
requires:2 Y; inch caliper deciduous trees; 6 foot high evergreen species; and at least 1 5 'Yo
o I' all deciduous trees to he at least 3 !'2 inch caliper in size. StatTwould recommend that
all deciduous species in the butTeryard be at least 3 Y: caliper inches and all evergreen
species to be 8 feet in height to l11ake up ror the swale.
II.
Finally, cluster rnail box locations and identify trash receptacle locations consistent with
postal and trash-removal requirements.
After presentation oCthe items noted above, the following discussion ensued.
.
Bill Gleason stated that he was not able to review the stall report until today. lie noted
that by adding twO access points on the main road, the need for the connecting segments
on the north side is eliminated. lie felt that the plan as proposed by staff creates too much
hlack top and does not add value to the development. He noted that the landscape ideas
are good and will add value to the development. He is happy to I(Jllow the ideas presented
in the Planner's report.
Dick Frie wondered if there is enough room for snow storage and for emergency vehicle
access. O'Neill noted that there needs to be a 24' drive looping through the site to allow
for garbage collection. Connecting segments on the north side or the site could be
relnoved irthe 18' drives were increased to 24'. Gleason noted that widening the interior
drives would not be possible as doing so would result in an encroachment in the yard
setback along County Road 117. Steve Grittman noted that removal of the segments
along the northern edge would move the design toward more cornplete compliance with
the bulTer yard requirements.
Alter discussion, Dick Frie suggested that the item be tabled to allow ft)r stafr and
developer to review the drive aisle pattern in more detail and come up with a good
solution. 13ill Gleason agreed that tabling the rnatter makes sense and noted that they
suggested adding a month to the process is acceptable.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY R01313IE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO TABU': CONSIDERATION OF TilE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD
REQUISr. Motion carried unanimously.
.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/06/01
7.
Discuss Plannin12 Commission involvement in upcoming MCP meeting.
O'Neill inft)nned the group that the MCP will he having a melnhership meeting in
March. The MCP is looking for specific projeets to undertake that the City would like to
see completed. He wondered if the Planning Commission would like to provide some
input to the MCP prior to this meeting. Are there any planning studies that the Planning
Commission might want the MCP help process?
Dick Frie stated that there should be Planning Commission involvement in MCP goal
setting. He thought that everyone from the Planning Commission should attend the
meeting and should provide input on MCr project prioritization.
Councilmember Herbst suggested that the MCP give the Planning COlnmission a list of
possible itcms fl)r completion and the Planning Commission should help in prioritization.
Herbst suggest a project idea for the MCP. Why not do something with D-day. Combine
D-Day with Walk and Roll. Have some anti-smoking celebration. Rod suggested that we
should do something with the Trumpeter Swans.
It was the consensus of the group to be involved in the MCP goal/project identification
process as participants. However. the Planning Commission offers no specific projects at
this time.
Dick Frie noted that he wil1 not be here fix the March meeting
8. Robbie Slnith had a question regardin12 Cabin Fever Entertainment.
What is with the paper on the windows? Fred Patch noted that the business did start
remodeling the building without a huilding permit. After being contacted by the building
department they did provide necessary information. Fred said he has stopped by a few
times since. Patch also noted that they appear to be conducting retail operations,
therefore the use remains acceptable. Dick Frie asked if this item can be put on the
agenda for the next lneeting.
9. Overflow parkin!.! at Sunny fresh.
Clint Herbst asked to hear cOlnments regarding over-flow parking. Is there a problem
and/or is there anything we want to do about it. After discussion it was determined that a
meeting should be set up with Sunny Fresh and that staff should analyze the problem and
WIlle up with some ideas. This item to be placed on the next Planning Commission
Agenda.
-6-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/0(j/O I
10.
Update on new sigml!!e at the law office.
Fred Patch reported that the MetcaWLarson overhanging sign is in cOlllpliance with the
City ('ode. It is difficult to read because the applicant placed the sign so high on the
building.
11. There being no further discussion, meeting was adiourned.
JellO'Neil1
-7-
.
.
.
Planning Commissioll Agenda -3/06/01
5.
Considerntion of a Develonment Stnge Planned Unit Develonment for a townhouse
Ilroiect in Klein Farms Estntes 2".1 Addition, and considcntion of nnllroval of
preliminary Illat. Applicant: Engle Crest. (NAC)
A. REI;I~:RENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission tabled action on Eagle Crest's Developll1ent Stage PUD at its
February 1l1ecting, due to a number ofoutstanding design issues, and the applicant's inability
to review staff comments. Since that time, the applicant has SUbll1itted a revised plan which
meets rl1any of staffs recommendations. The previous comments, and the applicant's
response, are sumrl1arized below:
The easterly access road should be moved to the cast boundary and loop around the end units.
In this way. the entire eastern halfofthe project could be served by a continuous loop road
without the dead end section. This is an issue for City trash removal service. as well as for
general circulation. This change should not result in a loss of units. since units 45-47 could
be shifted west slightly.
I.
The easterly access road should be moved to the east boundary and loop around the
end units.
This has heen done 10 slafrs salisfac/ion. 1he redesi~n has led 10 a sli~hl increase
in unil count. and the soulherly t()\l'nhouses in Ihe easl half oflhe projec/ 10 he
~rouped inlo ei~hl-UnillJ1llldin~s. inslead oflhe previous!hur-unit eluslers.
2.
The western-most driveway should be continued around to loop back and connect
with the westerly access road.
The applicant 's have requesled Ihat this chan~e not he required. and hove a~reed
to require trash pick-up and !I1ailhoxes to he located alon~ Ihe loop road Stafl
agreed to support this desi~n. with Ihe condition that residenls ore nwde mH/I'e of
Ihis requirernent. The developer argued Ihal residenls in the westerfv units would
pre!L'r a "de(f(l~end" driveway wilh less convenient service local ions. ralher Ihan Ihe
loop drive.
'"'1
-, .
The two dead-end interior driveways in the quad-unit area should be continued to
intersect with Farmstead Drive. The spacing of buildings in this area should be a
minimum of 60 feet from LICe of garage to f~lce of garage. The driveway widths of
18 feet would be adequate in this arrangement to permit backing and restricted access
to the residents and service vehicles.
- 1-
Planning Commission ^gcnda -3/06/01
.
The "deud-end" urrangernenl is relUined as lI'ilh Noll' I. under Ihe smne condilions
,I.,jwcing and drivL'1I'ay widlhs appear 10 II/eellhe requirel7/Cnls fisled uhove
4.
^1I driveways and roads in the project must be paved and curbed. The only
exception to curbing is for the 20 to 22 root long driveways which lead directly into
the garages from the access driveways. Except for the 18 foot wide driveways
specifically mentioned above. all othcr private streets and drives must be a minimunl
of 24 feet in width, LIce of curb to face of curb.
This relJuirernenl appears 10 have heerl me! in Ihe new plans,
5. Provide additional visitor parking spaced throughout the development at a minimum
ratio of one space per three units, a total extra parking supply of at least 21 spaces.
Visilor purking appears 10 he udelJuule us redesigned.
6. Provide a 5 foot wide concrete side\valk along Farmstead as shown on the plan fronl
the trail connection on the east to the wcst boundary of the propcrty at Edmonson
^ venue.
Fhis relJuiremenlH'ill he me/as relJuesled.
.
7.
Signilicantly enhance landscaping within the foundation planting areas around the
buildings. 'fhe current plan shows a per-unit planting of only four shrubs around the
entry sidewalk. Much more planting around the building is suggested where none is
now proposed.
This recomrnemlulion hus nol heen mel, Fhe jhundolion plunling,,' conlinue 10 he
sJmrse 01 hesl. A PUD requires Ihal in excllllngejhr Ihe signifimnl variulionsjrom
('ode mininnlfns, design ami umenily enhm1celnenls are included lI'hich resull in a
superior projecl. LWlliscuping is one of'the mosl husic enhunconenls. und should
he eXlensive, The Cily has ellfi)J'cell Ihis opprooch wilh oil olher IJUDs, including
Klein Forms Eslales. adjucenllo Ihis projecllo Ihe easl,
8. Enhance planting along the Farmstead Drive exposure with a buffer planting similar
to that provided by Staff as an exhibit to this report. cfhis butTer is designed to
provide an "open" screen for the rear yard spaces which bce the public roadway.
SlUff hod provided a skelch example of enhanced open screening along Farmslead.
ond in a meel ing. had explui ned I hall his Ireal rnenl. or smnelhing cOn/purahle, H'Olild
he unticipated along the lenglh of Ihe Farrnsleadji'onlage due 10 Ihe significunl
llll/Ounl of reoI' YOI'd exposure, The opplicanl has included oje}11 such enhance/nenls,
.
-2-
.
9.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -3/06/0 I
hUI u suhslunliul int.'reuse H'o/tld he neces.wlI)' 10 meet Ihe expeclulions jlJr PU[)
designal ion.
Enhance planting in the bufferyard area along the north boundary. One of the
considerations for the private street encroaching into the required buffer area is
additional buffer and screen plantings in that area. 'The proposal relies entirely on
existing plantings and should be strengthened. for the portion of the hulTeryard
where the road encroaches. an additional eight deciduous trees and 50 large shrubs
would help to increase the huffer density,
The hu/le/Tard landscaping \l'ill /nee! Ordinance reljuiremenls, und Ihe
reconll11endal ions o/Sta/t.
10.
Provide increased plant sizes over the east portion of the bufferyard. The grading
plan shows a swale in this area which is about:3 feet in depth. The plants should he
increased in size to accOlmnodate the require butTering effect. Thc zoning ordinance
currently requires 2 1/1 inch caliper deciduous trees: 6 foot high evergreen species:
and at least 1 YX) of all deciduous trees to be at least 3 1/2 inch caliper in size. Statl
\vould recommend that all deciduous species in the hulTeryard be at least:3 i;; caliper
inches and all evergreen species to be X feet in height to make up f()r the swale.
rhis area o/lhe hu//c:/~yard ll'ill also meet require/nenls.
11.
Finally, cluster mail box locations and identit'; trash receptacle locations consistent
with postal and trash-removal requirements.
The applicant has agreed 10 this rel/uire/nent. and is working \l'ith stafl'and Ihe post
office/I)!' appropriate local ions. For the H'estern side of the project, on area along
thc norlhern loop driveway will he set asidefl)!' this purpose. This are(/ should he
il11prm'ed silnilar to a sidewalk hehind the curh./ln' ease OfSruHl' re/nol'ol and 0 hard
sur/c/('c/or trash receptacles and recJ'cling conwiners awaiting pick-up.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD and approval of
prcl inlinary piaL subject to conditions mentioned in this report and recommendations
of the City Engineer and Public Works stall
')
Motion to recommend denial of the PU D, based on a finding that the proposed
improvements do not qualify the project t()I' PU D consideration.
-3-
Planning Commission Agenda -3/06/0 I
.
,..,
-) .
Motion to table action on the PUO. subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends approvaL but only with additional plan inlprovements noted in this report.
As we have stated in this and other PUO reviews. pun is a zoning technique intended to
increase the quality or development design. Without the improvements which make 1'01' a
clear finding of higher quality, PUD should not be used, and development should be made
to comply with all zoning requirements, including public street frontage for all units and
other basic zoning regulations.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
I. Development Plan
! I _,-ll1dscape Plan
.
.
-4-
.
.
.
Planning COlTlmission Agenda -3/06/01
6.
Considcration of an amendmcnt to thc Zonin2: Ordinance to rcrmit increast'd size for
frccstanding :md elcctronic signs. Applicant: Monticello Dodge. (NAC)
A. REFERENCF AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello Dodge has submitted a request vvhich would allow for increased sign height area.
and electronic display size for fiTestanding signs. The proposed sign is approxirnately 750
square ICet in area. 40 feel in height and includes an clectronic display that is approximately
thrce tirnes that of the current area allowance. The current regulations were adopted to
accommodate the electronic sign recently installed by Monticcllo r"ord last year. That
C)rdinance required that electronic displays could be a part 01" a pylon sign to a maxirnum 01"
5C)O;\) ol"the sign display. but no more than 70 square ICet. Pylon signs I"or properties such as
Monticello Dodge arc currently permitted to be 200 square ICel in area. and 32 feet in height.
This is an increased size ror properties adjacent to liTeway areas. The sign features a digital
display that is capable of showing .'television-like" images.
The proposed Monticello Dodge sign is Llr in excess of the City's current regulations. \vhich
already include a --bonus" size provision ror li'eeway fi'ontage. It rivals the size of billboards
which have been lung restricted. Moreover. planning stal"r is unaware of comparable sign
allowances in other areas. The City's 200 square foot and 32 foot height standards are in line
with many other metropolitan area comlnunities. and exceed the allowances 01" several.
Finally. Monticello Ford installed a sign based on the new regulations adopted by the City
just one year ago. A change to the regulation could be read to have an unequal impact on
similar businesses in the same area and /oning district. The proposed sign will replace an
existing billboard.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the sign regulations to
accOlnmodate the proposed I"reestanding sign for Monticello Dodge. Motion based
on the finding that a free-standing sign of this magnitude is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
2.
Motion to recOIn mend denial 01" an amendment to the sign regulations. and require
compliance with the current standards.
"
.) .
Motion to table action on the amendment. pending additional inf~)rmation.
-1-
Planning Commission ^gcnda -3/06/01
.
c.
S"I"AFF RECOMMENI)^"I"ION
Staff does not recon1lnend an amendment to the regulations. lhe current language was
adoptedjust one year ago to provide a consistent basis for regulating and allowing electronic
signs. The overall sign size has been applied to Inany businesses in the area, and no unusual
circumstances would appear to apply to this site that would compel a change. Finally,
planning stall believes that increasing the size to accommodate signs of this size would
eventually result in a scrious aesthetic problem, as well as cl uttering competition ror sign size
and location as more businesses adapted to the new standmds. This result would not seem
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and other land use planning which have
made community livability and attractiveness important objectives.
D. SLJPPORTINCi D^TA
Exhibit ^ - Proposed Sign Drawing
.
.
-2-
~
U\
rt\
--I _ __
- f---- - _..
t---- ---.- -...-.............
.
~
Q
()
- -- (J .J
~ - -- 4.
- ,~~
I ~ ~
s:.
.
.~
t I
: ~=--=--=-=I~
I J- I~
L_-- r:~
4.
...
.
-~
~
~
4
?
~
I~
~
i
~
~
EAtibit A
.
35'
.
..........................'....... M.."..:.<.................'O."..'..........\.OOi...,..'.....\.'i'T......"..'I'.'.....C....' .'.\..E.......,..,.::../t',........t......................:...".'.\0..'.
:'...........
'.' .': ...., '.' ....... .'.,> ' .... ...... '.",;. ..:: ./ ,'.
""'."::"" ,..:. . "..,.'" " .." ""'.'. ""." "" .:' .::,::,',: "'.'" :,;,'.'.'::.' '.".........'. ....:.......
. "" ", ", .: .'::'," ::-,', .' , " " . >:.'.'", ":",',:., ':'.' .... ,.-';':".:., . .'-:'.( ,,:.:: :",:', ",', ~''',':':''': :,., ,," '::
. , ',' ",'" . ' '
'" ,,' ' ' ' ,," ' ."""" ' ,. "
U!~ifi'R/!til:s}!;'[};,;~i;t;:!J;;;/I:~!(j,;}'i![)'(;O>[)',~E. ......
.:\,j[] ....'.1 ",.I:R .. ..1:[:',[0.:::". .. ..ii.... ........ "U '.
,..", . "-". ",."."'" -:,....',.........." ',.".' ""':"" .,"",.,-:,:"""".,.' .,'" '" '.',.:,~:,.::>:',':,:'.;:>:',r:,'.:,:/,:':.'.;:/,.<:,";"'.".",::,:'':"-''::'::''':'':''''':''
40'
.
.~ .. cu. 21121 flllls,., It. .
SZG-N'& Prilalll,..
n 55311
763-444-0212
x
Dr.wlng By= "800. I Date:
II................... ftI" ~ .....-....
...... ...... .,....110O .................. 1M
11III_......-, .....
lD-l
.;
.
.
.
7.
Planning COlnmission Agenda - 03/06/01
Update on Walnut Street/Sunny Fresh Parking. (.10)
JefT to provide verbal update.
-1-