PL PACKET 09201983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 -7- (3) The 20 year old site plans which were considered by another Planning Commission are now invalidated because of the change in the development of the adjacent neighborhood and the fact that they addressed the existing building and not this proposal . (4) Estimated building costs given by the property owner did .not _ fairly provide the Planning Commission with the ability of com- paring costs of alternate development construction. (5) Plumbing service advantages to proposed construction might also benefit an addition on the existing north side of the building. (6) Incomplete site plans addressing landscaping, exterior, and window finishing, drainage or building elevations were not available. (7) Noise encroachment would very probably result for the adjoining neighbors . (8) Major neighborhood and resident opposition was presented during the two hearings on the proposal , including a. petition with 23 signatures , representing 13 homes in the same area. (9) The proposal appears to violate the community norm set for rear- yard enjoyment in a single family neighborhood by reduction in size , view, and general amenities . The motion recommending Council denial of the Elmwood request passed unanimously . Mr. Childs was requested to let the Council members know that the Commission perceives this proposal because of the unique topography of the land, etc. , would require a personal inspection of the subject site by them. The meeting was recessed at 9 : 45 P .M. and reconvened at 9 :50 P.M. , for the public hearing on the petition for a sign variance which would allow for a sign to be placed on both sides of the existing pylon sign located_ at 2620 Highway 88, to identify the LaPepiniere Montessori School and Day Care Center. The Chair read the notice of the hearing which had been mailed to .all adjacent property owners within 350 feet of the subject site and published August 4th in the Bulletin. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content. Marsh Everson, 6515 Barrie Road, Edina, president of the Montessori center, was present to answer- questions about why he believed his business , more than the existing merchants' in the same shopping center , would require a lighted pylon sign to identify his facility , .especially since such signage is permitted under the existing Sign Ordinance for only gas service stations and large.,..shopping centers . He was. told that the existing "Bank" psign .was grandfathered into -the new ordinance for .,the. bank- which had 'left- the premises in March and that 'the only reason -the sign was still up .was that the .ordinance does not require it be removed -until one year' after': the departure of the business it identified. He was also informed that the new ordinance also permits monument type signs only in industrial districts-. and .none would be permitted in a commercial district.