Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 9 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Miller said he disagrees with attaching conditions of this type; explained this <br />is a "land use" issue; explained that two-family residences are permitted on <br />this land in this district; noted there is enough land for two single-family <br />homes - City Ordinance does not limit the number of people, or cars, in <br />single-family homes; explained this is a legitimate land use in the district; <br />noted only two homes have a legitimate concern re this proposal; noted the <br />proposed house can only be seen from 2 lots; noted it is a unique and isolated <br />lot, meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the application <br />should be addressed as a land use issue. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Hansen moved to amend the motion as follows: "to approve issuance of a Special <br />Use Permit for a two-family dwelling for a five-year period. subject to: <br />1. House is owner-occupied by the applicants' (Finns). <br />2. No more than two cars are parked outside of the garage, on a permanent <br />basis. (2 in garage - 2 outside). <br />3. No more than 4 valid noise complaints in a six-month period (separate <br />incidents). <br /> <br />Amendment was seconded by Peck. (Applicant Finn agreed to these points). <br /> <br />Roy Anderson said he appreciates the efforts at compromise; noted that <br />previously the applicants were in no mood to compromise; feels there is always <br />room for compromise; said they would be happy to consult with the applicants <br />and the Council. <br /> <br />The motion on the amendment carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />In discussion, Council discussed justification for a "valid complaint", and who <br />would be the judge. It was the general consensus that the Council can <br />determine if a complaint is valid. <br /> <br />Peck moved to amend the <br />was seconded by Sather. <br />Woodburn, Hansen voting <br /> <br />motion to change the time limit to 10 years. Motion <br />Motion on the amendment carried (Peck, Sather, <br />in favor; Hicks voting in opposition). (4-1) <br /> <br />Original motion, as amended, carried (Hansen, Sather, Peck, Woodburn voting in <br />favor of the motion; Hicks voting in opposition). (4-1) <br /> <br />Case No. 86-21. Setback and SiRn Area Variances for Site SiRnaRe - Northwoods <br />Office Park. Opus Corporation. <br />Council was referred to the signage plan for Northridge Office Park which <br />includes two area identification signs and directional/informational signs for <br />Building #1. Miller explained that one area identification sign is oriented <br />toward I-694, the other toward Red Fox Road and Northwoods Drive - both conform <br />to the size requirements. The sign on Red Fox Road and Northwoods Drive is <br />proposed to be located 20' from Northwoods Drive right-of-way and IS' feet from <br />Red Fox Road right-of-way (25' setbacks required). Miller explained that the <br />two temporary "For Lease" signs require area variances; a 48 s.f. temporary <br />sign is proposed, oriented toward I-694, and a 96 s.f. temporary sign is <br />oriented toward Red Fox Road (32 s.f. is permitted). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Miller reported that the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals recommend <br />approval of the setback variances for the area identification sign at Red Fox <br />Road and Northwoods Drive, and the area variance for the temporary sign at <br />I-694. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals also recommends approval of <br />the area variance for the Red Fox Road temporary sign; the Planning Commission <br />recommends denial of this area variance. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve the setback variances for <br />the permanent area identification sign. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Tim Murnane, Opus Corporation, explained that high speed and distance from the <br />traffic lanes are the reasons for the size variances requested for the <br />temporary "For Lease" signs. Murnane noted that the ordinance permits a 32 <br />s.f. construction sign and a 32 s.f. real estate sign at each frontage road; <br />feels that one larger sign would reduce the sign "clutter" and provide better <br />sign visibility; explained that they only want what has been previously allowed <br />at other development sites; noted these signs are temporary and will be removed <br />when building is rented; purpose of the sign is to advertise the space <br />available. <br />