PL PACKET 03202001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 20, 2001 Page 2 • 1 Henry reviewed this issue for the Planning Commission by stating that on January 9,2001,the City 2 Council looked at the resolutions passed to them by the Planning Commission from public hearings .3 held on the Walgreens development on December 19,2000. All of the resolutions passed, with the 4 exception of the sign variance request. Reconsideration of the Walgreens sign variance request was 5 on the Planning Commission's January 16,2001 agenda; however,the applicant requested to table 6 the item until the February 20, 2001 due to a family emergency. 7 Henry noted the letter dated February 13, 2001 from TOLD Development indicating why they 8 believe their site is unique and why a variance is needed for extra signage than what is allowed by 9 City code. It was noted that TOLD Development indicated to the City Council that it would remove 10 the electronic component from the sign variance request. At this point, the petitioner is requesting 11 a sign variance to allow for a ground (or monument) sign consisting of 50 square feet of copy on 12 each side for a total surface copy area of 100 square feet. City code states the allowable sign copy 13 surface area is a maximum of 68 square feet. This request exceeds the existing code by 32 square 14 feet, 16 square feet per side. 15 Henry stated this sign variance request is before the Planning Commission again because the City 16 Council would like a more clear answer on the issue. It was noted that the Planning Commission 17 will need to define the hardships for the applicant if a variance is granted. She added that findings •18 could be, but not limited to, the following: (1) the property elevations make it difficult to view the' 19 signage;(2)the easements make sign placement difficult;and(3)the property is difficult to develop. 20 Mr. Mike Kalscheur of TOLD Development introduced himself and explained that additional site 21 characteristics were revealed in conversation with adjacent neighbors after the last Planning 22 Commission meeting, and after looking into the issue of the bus shelter, the following points are 23 worth of consideration: 24 1. Because of the existing trees on the railroad land north of the site,the store is not visible to 25 southbound traffic until cars are past the entrance from Silver Lake Road,in part because the 26 watermain that bisects the site requires that the building be situated further west than it 27 otherwise would. 28 . 2. Because of the.existing homes to the south of the site,the store is not visible to northbound 29 traffic until the intersection of Silver Lake Road and 37`h Avenue. 30 3. The exiting topography of the site dictates that the store will be at an elevation that is 6-8 feet 31 lower than Silver Lake Road, which further reduces the visibility of the store. 32 4. The Metro Transit Authority would like to rebuild the bus stop shelter along Silver Lake 33 Road that was removed when the reconstruction of the road was commenced. The former 34 location of the shelter encroaches on the site and obstructs visibility of the monument sign. 35 Melsha inquired as to the proposed location of the sign.Kalscheur explained that the sign is set back 36 15 feet in a landscape island facing Silver Lake Road,and he reviewed the elevation of the property.