Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6/2/93 8'" <br /> <br />Therefore, a variance is not required, only the <br />approval of the Plan that shows the deviation. <br /> <br />3. Substantial right-of-way was purchased at this <br />intersection when I-694 was constructed. South of <br />county Road F, the north/south lanes of Hamline are <br />divided by a wide grass median. Signalization has been <br />discussed for this intersection but no plans have been <br />made for the signals or reconfiguration of the <br />intersection. The large triangle at this corner would <br />be a good candidate for turning back to the OWner, <br />however it would be inappropriate to turn back any of <br />this right-of-way until plans for the intersection are <br />developed that indicate it is not needed. <br /> <br />4. The wide R/W at the intersection, puts the property <br />line where the sign is located about 65 feet from the <br />travelled lanes of both Hamline and County Road F. <br />Ordinarily this distance is about 15 feet. The <br />required 20 foot sign setback would require the sign to <br />be 85 feet from the curb line in this case where <br />ordinarily it would be about 35 feet. <br /> <br />5. The edge of the woods is about at the R/W line where <br />the sign is proposed. Trees and dense brush provide a . <br />buffer between the streets and the buildings, parking <br />and interior drives. A 20 foot sign setback would <br />require removal of both brush and trees to make the <br />sign visible from the streets. <br /> <br />6. The nearly 40 acre site with only one use means that <br />the signs proposed in this application are likely to be <br />the only ones ever needed. For comparison, ordinary <br />lot-by-lot development like the Lexington Avenue or <br />County Road E business areas would have 4 to 6 <br />different owners on each street frontage of the <br />property, each with their own signs. <br /> <br />7. The 4' high granite wall on which the sign is proposed <br />is permitted to be located in the front yard as <br />proposed. <br /> <br />Recommendations: <br /> <br />The proposed sign is appropriate in this instance for the <br />reasons stated in considerations 3 through 6 above. The PUD <br />allows flexibility in applying specific regulations and <br />inherently allows trade-offs to be considered -- unlike <br />strict application of the variance procedure. Action should <br />stipulate that the proposed signs and signage plan are made . <br />a part of the overall CPI PUD. <br />