Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6/2/93 7 <br /> . <br /> Applicant Bernie Ortt shared some pictures with the <br /> commission showing the trees in question and his plans for <br /> the garage. <br /> Discussion followed regarding the safety of the trees. Ortt <br /> confirmed he has no intention of disturbing the roots of the <br /> trees and emphasized his main concern is keeping the trees <br /> but he has a desire for a large garage. <br /> McGraw moved to deny the variance requested in Case #93-08 <br /> based on no evidence of hardship. Carlson seconded. <br /> Motion carried. (7-0) <br /> CASE #93-10 ESTABLISHING FROHTYARD SETBACK FOR AN AREA <br /> IDENTIFICATION SIGN <br /> When the original PUD plan for the CPI was approved, no <br /> change in the site s1gnage was proposed. At this time they <br /> propose to update and replace the business sign at the west <br /> entrance and the directional sign at the south entrance, and <br /> add an area identification sign at the SW corner of the <br /> site. Also included in the submission was an overall site <br /> . signage plan which shows 3 future information/direction <br /> signs at the site entrances along the east property line <br /> abutting Fernwood street. A deviation is proposed from the <br /> front yard setback requirement for the Area Identification <br /> Sign at the corner of County Road F and Hamline Avenue to <br /> allow the sign to be placed on the property line rather than <br /> having the standard 20 foot setback. The business sign at <br /> the main entrance replaces a sign that was previously <br /> granted a Front yard Setback Variance due to existing trees <br /> that would have to be removed if the variance was not <br /> granted. The Variance was issued prior to the PUD, and <br /> therefore could not be treated as a deviation from the <br /> standard requirements as is done in a PUD. <br /> Bergly presented the following considerations: <br /> 1- The sizes, heights and number of signs meet all <br /> ordinance requirements. <br /> 2. The PUD procedure discusses the PUD as an overlay <br /> district, whereby the basic underlying Zoning District <br /> establishes the basic allowable uses and the general <br /> standards for development and that the approved PUD <br /> plan establishes the specific regulations for <br /> development that shall govern and take precedence over <br /> the underlying Zoning District regulations. The PUD <br /> . procedure stipulates that the applicant must identify <br /> all deviations from the standard regulations. <br /> ~._._---_.__.- -~-- ---- ~-_.._- <br />