Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 December Planning Commission Minutes1' k e ., x,41, r REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 3, 1992 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 7:30 P.M. VARIANCE: TIME LIMIT EXTENSION TO ALLOW A DENSITY VARIANCE TO BE VALID FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR 7:45 P.M. CONTINUE DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION * Indicates a Public Hearing JAMES MILLER APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF JACKSON TRAIL ON NORTHERN PRIOR LAKE ALLEN GREENFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start later than the scheduled time. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 1 Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447 -4245 AN EQUAL OPPOMUNrrY EN91OVER l,N PR/ \ \ir N,\ t: So PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1992 The December 3, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Roseth at 7:30 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Loftus, Arnold, Greenfield and Roseth, Director of Planning Horst Graser, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Commissioner Wuellner arrived at 7:45 P.M. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING commissioner Greenfield wished to clarify the motion on page 4, paragraph 8, second line, by adding the words "THE BY -LAWS OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN CHAPTER 3, 1 ' to the motion. This sentence was not included at the time of the motion, but reference had been made to the chapter during Commissioner Greenfield's presentation. After consulting with Mr. Graser the amendment was made. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Greenfield, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM II - JEROME MILLER - VARIANCE EXTENSION Jerome Miller, 15563 Calmut Ave. NE, represented his wife, Phyllis Miller, who is the applicant. The request before the Commissioners is an extension of a variance that had been granted to William Henning on September 17, 1992, by the City Council. Mr. Miller stated that he and his wife are not ready to build and would like additional time to prepare plans. Mr. Graser presented the information as per memo of December 3, 1992. The property in question had bean sold to the applicant after the variance was granted. City Attorney Glenn Kessel drafted an agreement setting forth the stipulations of the findings of fact and that the variance will run with the land for a period not to exceed twenty years. However, because the twenty year time frame was not specifically cited in the findings of facts, Attorney Kessel suggested that a separate variance be filed to clarify the time limit issue. Pending the decision by the Commissioners on this variance, Staff will contact Harold Bohlen to determine his interest in obtaining a similar clause to a comparable variance granted to his property located south of the Titus Addition. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax(612)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUN EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER. 3, 1992 PAGE 2 Comments from the Commissioners were on the 20 year time limit and all were in agreement of the extension. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY GREENFIELD, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE EXTENSION FOR LOTS 6 - 10, BLOCK 1, TITUS 2ND ADDITION AND LOTS 7 - 12, BLOCK 2, TITUS 2ND ADDITION. RATIONAL BEING THAT IT IS FEASIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO STABILIZE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHDORHOOD, AND THAT ANOTHER LAND OWNER IN A SIMILAR SITUATION WILL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Greenfield, Arnold, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. An update of ongoing projects was given by Mr. Graser. ITEM III - COMMISSIONER GREENFIELD - CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON PLANNING COMMISSION DUTIES The items on Attachment A numbered from 1 to 9 and Attachment B were discussed and each commented on separately. Some changes were made to these items.. Comments were on conducting public hearings to solicit opinions from the community and send questionnaires to all households. Consensus was that it is too soon to change the By -Laws. Questionnaire will be composed at the next meeting. Carl Hanson, 4065 Raspberry Ridge, stated the proposed attachments expands on what is already in place and gives further definition of the existing ordinance. MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECOND BY ARNOLD, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THESE ACTIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE BY -LAWS OF CITY COUNCIL IN CHAPTER 3, SECTION 1, PARAGRAPH 2 -3 -4: DUTIES OF COMMISSION SUB PARAGRAPH (A). 1. SCHEDULE AN ONGOING OPEN WORKSHOP, AT LEAST ONE BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE EACH MONTH, TO ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING: A. CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS BY SPECIAL INVITATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A ROTATING BASIS TO COVER ALL PLANNING DISTRICTS OVER A 2 YEAR PERIOD. NOTIFICATION SENT TO ALL. SOURCE OF DISSEMINATION TO BE DECIDED. B. INVITE GUEST SPEAKERS FROM MN PLANNING, PLANNING CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS FORM LOCAL COMMUNITIES, ETC. TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A REGULAR BASIS. C. INVITE LOCAL AREA RESIDENTS TO SPEAK REGARDING CONCERNS OF ANY NATURE IN OUR COMMUNITY. 2. CREATE A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MAILING TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS AND BUSINESSES IN PRIOR LAKE. SOURCE OF DISSEMINATION TO BE DECIDED. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1992 PAGE 3 3. ENROLL THE COMMISSIONERS IN THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION AND THE MINNESOTA CHAPTER TO KEEP INFORMED OF CURRENT PLANNING ISSUES. ALLOW TIME UNDER NEW BUSINESS EACH MEETING TO DISCUSS ANY PERTINENT ISSUES. Vote taken signified ayes by Greenfield, Arnold, Roseth, Loftus, and Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Wuellner, Roseth, and Arnold. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:18 P.M Hall. Tapes of meeting on file at City Horst W. Graser Director of Planning Rita M. Schewe Recording Secretary i -J ts� NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION You are hereby notified that the Planning Commission will hold a special meeting on Saturday, December 5, 1992 beginning at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to take a walking tour of a future subdivision site which consists of approximately 160 acres of vacant land located south of Prior Lake Middle School and Senior High. Anyone interested in participating in the tour should contact the Prior Lake Planning Department in order that transportation to the site can be arranged The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the south entrance of Prior Lake City Hall located at 4629 Dakota Street S.E. If you desire to participate in the walking tour or have questions regarding this matter, contact the Prior Lake Planning Departmen at 447 -4230. Deb Garross Assistant City Planner To be published in the Prior Lake American on Monday, November 30, 1992. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, kmnesota 55372 / Ph. (612( 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 AN EQUAL OPPORMNnY 04WYEA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 17, 1992 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 7:30 P.M. HEARING VARIANCE COUNTY MARKET 7:45 P.M. HEARING VARIANCE ROCKPORT HOMES 8:00 P.M. DISCUSS QUESTIONNAIRE ALLEN GREENFIELD 8:30 P.M. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE ALLEN GREENFIELD PLAN 2010 * Indicates a Public Hearing All times stated on the Planning Commission Age,::!r- with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start later than the scheduled time. 4625 Dakota St. S.E., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) "74245 AN EQUAL ON "MINRY EMPLOYE I // T i 1 T PLt.NNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 The December 17, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Roseth at 7:30 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Loftus, Arnold, Roseth, Wuellner, Greenfield, Director of Planning Horst Graser, Assistant City Planner Deb Garross, and Acting Secretary Phyllis Knudsen. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Upon review of the Dece er 3, 1992 minutes, Commissioner Loftus motioned to make the following changes: Page two, Paragraph 11, Line two; change word "form" to "from ". MOTION BY LOTUS, SECONDED BY WUELLNER TO AMEND THE MINUTES AS STATED ABOVE. vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Greenfield, Wuellner and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED ITEM II - COUNTY MARKET - VARIANCE Ka7 IIE er, riFiregeEtative Of oy Sign Co. 6325 Welcome Ave. No., Brooklyn Park, MN. Mr. Reiter discussed the history of signs for County Market and Super Valu Foods. There are 30 County Market stores in Minnesota, 27 of which use the 60" letters proposed on the sign plan and variance application. Three stores are located in retrofitted buildings and contain smaller signs because the facia wouldn't allow the 60" letters. This particular building was designed with a facia to accommodate the 4 wall signs with the dimensions as identified on the proposed sign plan. When the plan was first submitted it was submitted with 60" letters with the 3x47' "Total Discount Food" sign, a "Deli /Bakery" sign and an "Open 24 Hour" sign and the addition of a "Taco Belle sign. The sign Ordinance permits a maximum wail sign area of 200 square feet per sign and a total of three wall signs for the building, which is not sufficient to accommodate signage for County Market. An alternative would be to measure the signs in a different manner than staff. staff measures signs from the outer limits of the letters. It is the proposal of the applicant to measure the area of the letters only. If this measurement is allowed, the proposed "County Market" sign would be 188 square feet instead of 4629 Dakota $t. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 4474245 M EQUAL OPPOMNrry D PLOM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 FAGE 2 the staff calculation of 490 square feet. Other signs could be combined in order to meet the square footage requirement and result in 3 wall signs for the County Market store. Mr. Reiter indicated the signs are already built for the Prior Lake store and the blocking and supports to mount the letters have been installed. Mr. Reiter passed around some photos of other stores in Minnesota showing the signs that are typically associated with a County Market store. Neil Lipson, Architect with P1anMark at 140 Chatah Circle, Chanhassen, MN. explained the architecture of the building and that the facia was designed to accommodate the signage proposed. The signs are necessary to be visible across the large parking lot and produce a facia that is in scale with the entire building. Mr. Lipson stated that he has worked with various communities and there are different methods of measurement used to determine sign area. some communities permit the measurement of the letters alone, as is proposed in the application. The Prior Lake Sign ordinance does not specify the method of measurement. If the method proposed is used, a sign area variance would not be necessary. Chairman Roseth asked for the clarification as to how this box is drawn around the letters and Mr. Lipson stated it was just followinq area within letters, perimeter of the letters Leslie Novak, Attorney with Maco, Krautz and Moore, TCF Tower, 121 So. 8th St., Minneapolis, MN, represented Lee and Marilyn Rademacher. He had the opportunity to look at the sign ordinance and stated that based on earlier discussions and the revised drawing, the proposed plan would fall within the most restrictive interpretation of the sign ordinance which would permit 200 sq.ft. per sign and three wall signs for the building. The ordinance does not specify the method of measurement therefore, it would be reasonable o apply the measurement t echn i q ue proposed by the app licant ordinance can be interpreted in many different ways and that the staff interpretation is the most restrictive. If the words are given their fullest possible meaning, the sign plan as proposed would conform to the ordinance. The staff report stated that there is adequate provision for signs because the ordinance permits one, free standing sign. The applicant has chosen not to use a pylon sign so there may not be adequate signage permitted by the ordinance. The 200 square foot sign area allowed by the ordinance may present a safety problem due to the lack of illumination close to the building front. Furthermore, the building permit has boon approved and the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 3 schematics were shown on the plans. LeRoy Sign Co. has constructed the signs and the anchors have been installed on the building. It is the opinion of the applicant that the hardship is created by the ordinance which does not address signage for the size building proposed and that the signs have been constructed according to the building plans approved by the City via the building permit issued in August of 1992. County Market has a total concept where the proposed signage is a crucial part of the financial viability of the project. It has already been stated, that the proposed sign plan is similar to 27 County Markets in the State of Minnesota. Another point unique to the property is that it is located adjacent to State Hwy. 13 where the speed limit is 45 mph. The building is set on the furthest point back on the property. The store requires signs that people can glance at and read without having to take their eyes off the road. If people have to take their eyes of the road or slow down to read a sign (points to the smaller of the sign drawings) a safety problem may result. Deb Garross presented information as per staff memo dated December 17, 1992. The variance to be considered is specifically from Sign Ordinance Section 5 -7 -4, B1, 2 and 4. The specific request is to consider two different variances. 1. The initial application was for 4 signs. The Sign Ordinance states three would be permitted for this building based on the number of principle entrances to the building. 2. A size variance from the total square footage for the County Market sign itself. The proposed "County Market - Total Discount Foods" sign is 490 square feet in area. The maximum sign area permitted by the sign ordinance is 200 square feet. The second variance is to consider a 290 square foot sign area variance. Ms. Garross stated that the ordinance does not specify the method of measurement to be used to determine sign area however, the practice has been to calculate sign area using the outermost limits of the letters or sign proposed. In the County Market case, the sign area consists of a 10 X 49 rectangle which results in the 490 square foot area stipulated in the staff report. Staff has recognized for several years that the Sign Ordinance could be amended and clarified in several sections. In 1990 and 1991 both Dave Unmacht, former City Manager and Ms. Garross held a number of meetings with local business owners to discuss the existing ordinance and determine areas that should be reviewed to meet current advertising needs of the community. A draft, prepared in 1991 was submitted to the Planning Commission as evidence that staff has been working to clarify the sign ordinance. Dave Unmacht was responsible for the ordinance amendment process which was never completed, due to other pressing issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 4 It is the responsibility of staff to interpret and administer ordinance requirements. The interpretation applied to this application is consistent with the administration of the sign ordinance since its adoption in 198 3. The literal interpretation of the code requirements as well as the method to measure signs from the outer limits, has been applied to all sign applications since 1983. The sign ordinance permits three signs which can be 200 square fee*_ each, providing 600 square feet of advertising display area for the building. The ordinance also permits the use of a 100 square foot pylon sign. How the sign space is allocated is an option of the applicant. In this case, the applicant has chosen not to use the pylon sign and has in effect, restricted their own advertising display area. It is the opinion of staff that the ordinance permits sufficient sign display area and that the applicant has not demonstrated hardship, other than economic and convenience, to justify the variance requested. There have been statements made that the signs have already been ordered and the building has been set up for this particular sign. A memo from former City Manager, Dave Unmacht dated August 3, 1992 stated the following: "I talked to Dave Chromey on July 30th. I informed him that the proposed plan is greater than the ordinance allows. He informed me that the signs have not been built or ordered. I suggested we evaluate his plan and consider our options in the near future and he agreed. I will tell the same to Lyle Fuller on 8 -10 -92 when he returns from vacation." The actual building permit for County Market was issued on 8- 24 -92. The applicant was made aware prior to issuance of the building permit, that the aign plan did not conform to the sign ordinance. Any hardship related to ordering the signs and installation of supports is the result of actions of the applicant who was informed in July, that the signs would not meet ordinance requirements. The existing sign ordinance has been in effect for approximately 10 years. Since that time, three variance applications have been filed for signs. 1. Amoco redevelopment requested a variance to allow a taller sign than the 20' het9ht permitted for a free standing sign. The variance was denied. 2. A variance was requested and approved for O'Malleys on Main for a sign extending above the roof line. In that case O'Malleys had a very unique building which had a small back room with an overhang. The variance was approved for a sign to be located above the roof line. 3. E7. -STOP or CROWN COCO changed its sign without a permit, they later came in and requested a set back variance for a pylon sign and also a square footage deviation. Both the Planning Commission and City Council denied that application based on lack of hardship. The City is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 5 currently undergoing litigation with Crown Coco. The aw suit with Crown Coco is one of the primary reasons staff is concerned with the possible precedent that this variance could have. There have only been three previous applications for variance from the sign ordinance, therefore creating precedent is of utmost concern to staff. As stated in the staff report, it is up to the applicant to prove hardship and in this case, there is no hardship according to the zoning code and sign ordinance. The ordinance permits options for the applicant to utilize up to three, 20C sq. ft. wall signs and one, 100 sq. ft. shopping center sign. Staff is of the opinion that the ordinance allows adequate advertising display area for County Market. If County Market believes the ordinance does not address their situation, the proper procedure would be to apply for an amendment to the sign ordinance. It is possible that the amendment would be prudent to review since larger buildings will also likely be built in the new business park. Staff is of the opinion that it is dangerous to take one situation in terms of a variance application and create a precedent based on that application. Staff would feel much more at ease involving a public hearing process where the public would be invited to share input into an ordinance amendment. In that manner, a new standard could be adopted that would apply to buildings of the size of the County Market store. Chairman Roseth asked if this application, either approved or denied, then goes to Council. Ms.Garross replied that the Planning Commission has the authority to approve variances. However, the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed, by anyone, to the City Council. If there is an appeal, the Council would make the final decision on the variance application. Chairman Roseth recognized members of the audience who wished to speak on the issue. Leslie Novak, Attorney reiterated his points relative to the interpretation of several sections of the sign ordinance. Craig Tupy, 3892 Marsh St. Prior Lake commented that the City should work with new business and welcome them to the community instead of leaving them frustrated with processes such as the sign ordinance. He stated that several potential businesses have decided not to locate in Prior Lake due to the City's reaction to development proposals His opinion is that the County Market i sign (larger drawing) s aesthetically more pleasing, and based on the fact that they will employ 100+ people, the City should PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE o welcome business, not put them through this type of frustration. Mr. Tupy stated further that Prior Lake is growing and should face facts and welcome bigger businesses that will help the community. Chairman Roseth closed this portion of the meeting. Comments from Commissioner Greenfield were from the generalized comments Mr. Tupy made regarding developers and business people having trouble with the City of Prior Lake. Comments from Commissioner Greenfield regarding the Sign Ordinance are attached after page 8 of the minutes. (Exhibit A) Commissioner Arnold noted his feelings on the size of the sign on the staff proposal as being a safety hazard and not very appropriate. Deb Garross pointed out that the sign is only one 200 sq.ft. sign and County Market is allowed three of those signs. He continued stating the hardship appeared to be due t„ actions of the applicant and based on variances being set for future applications, he could not support a variance request. commissioner Loftus agreed that the Sign 2-din„nce should be reviewed and made other comments concerning the need to help this business open with an appropriate sign without setting a variance precedent. Commissioner Wuellner questioned the calculations based on the term "retail space" because the ordinance is based upon floor space. He also stated that he did not agree witI, the staff interpretation of the sign area permitted for the building. ordinance does not state allowed footage is based on retail space, it says floor space. Ms.Garross clarified that floor space is commonly used by other communities to calculate advertising display area. The floor area was used to demonstrate that the Prior Lake ordinance is not overly restrictive compared to the community sign ordinance surveyed. Staff handed out a copy of community sign calculations for 17 cities surveyed. commissioner Roseth recommended to Mr. Rademacher, since he indicated that a sign is needed right now, that he accept the drawing with the three signs and drop the small sign on the building at least for the time being. The suggestion was made to utilize the freestanding sign that is permitted by the ordinance for display of some of the signage that would not be permitted on the building front. Mr. Roseth also requested that a representative from County Market work with the City during the sign ordinance amendment process. Mr. Les Novak stated that the most prudent thing would be for the Rademacher's to withdraw the request for a variance and submit the application for the three signs as discussed. Mr. Novak withdrew the application at the request of the applicant. Commissioners called for a five minute recess. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 7 commissioner Roseth reconvened the meeting with Commissioner Greenfield requesting to make a statement relating to the County Market hearing. However due to lateness of the hour he would make his comments at the foot of the agenda. ITEM III - ROCKPORT HOMES - VARIANCE Dennis McGraw, representative of Rockport Homes, Inc. 4833 W. 123rd St., Savage, MN. The request is to construct a new single family home on Lot 32 of Boudin's Manor also known as 14419 Watersedge Trail. In applying for Building Permit, Gary Staber Building Inspector stated that what was submitted met all the criteria except for the lot which was "sub standard ". The variance requested is for a 3,036 sq.ft. minimum lot area variance. All other setbacks were in compliance with the ordinance. Ms. Garross stated that since this Subdivision was part of an annexation to Prior Lake it was platted by another governmental body. The applicant has designed a home that would fit on the lot and would not require any other setbacks or variances other than the lot size. Since this subdivision was approved in the 1950 the zoning and subdivision standards have changed over time. The existing lot of record cannot meet current zoning ordinance requirements and therefore the hardship is evident. Hardship is also evident in that the lot would not be buildable if the variance were not granted. The Zoning Code does provide a Section which states that lots of record before Mayy, 1973 are considered buildable, however they are subject to variance review of the Planning Commission and possibly City Council to mitigate negative impacts of development. The Planning Commission generally reviews drainage and setback issues. In this particular case, those variances are not being requested. Staff feels that the home can be built on the lot as proposed. Pat Lynch of the DHR was contacted on this issue and he has no objection to the proposal as submitted. Gordy Prochaska owner of the adjacent home located at 14425 Watersedge Trail stated that he would like to see a house built on that lot rather than the weeds and cockleburrs that were there this year. His house was built on a slab and he has had no problems with it. A house would make the area look better and he would be in favor of granting this variance, as long as the soil tests are done. Chairman Roseth closed this portion of the meeting. Comments from the Commissioners were commendations to the applicant, who came up with a design that required no setback variances, and they welcomed the new neighbor to Prior Lake. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1992 PAGE 8 MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECONDED BY ARNOLD, TO GRANT THE 3,036 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR 14419 WATERSEDGE TRAIL. RATIONAL BEING THAT THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THE APPLICATION OF CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS TO A LOT WHICH WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 1950. THE HARDSHIP WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ACTIONS BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROPOSED PLAN MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SETBACK VARIANCES. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Roseth, Wuellner, and Greenfield. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Roseth reopened the Sign Ordinance portion of the meeting as previously requested by Commissioner Greenfield. MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECONDED BY ARNOLD, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL INSTRUCT STAFF OR HIRE AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO FINALIZE THE DRAFT OF A REVISED SIGN ORDINANCE AND PREPARE A FINAL DOCUMENT FOR THE HEARING PROCESS. vote taken signified ayes by Greenfield, Arnold, Loftus, Roseth, and Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM V - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2010 - DISCUSSION chairman Roseth read into the record the motion as passed by the Planning Commissioners on December 3, 1992, asking the City Council for special funding to comply with this motion in the annual amount of $4,000.00. These funds will be allocated for the Citywide questionnaire, public invitations, funds in perpetuity and miscellaneous expenses. Discussion followed as to the content of the questionnaire. Staff was instructed to contact communities to obtain copies of citizen surveys. Horst Graser gave a brief overview of the historical development of Prior Lake as a prelude to the introduction of the draft 2010 Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission. NOTION BY ARNOLD, SECONDED BY WUELLNER TO ,ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wuellner, Greenfield, Loftus, and Roseth. MOTION CARRIED. Meeting closed at 11:58 P.M. Tapes of the meeting are on file at City Nall. city Planner Acting Recording Secretary Horst Graser Phyllis Knudsen Exhibit A - 11, Planning Commission i'rom: Commissioner Greenfield subj"t Prior I Ac Sign Ordinance it is personally disappointing that we commissioners are scheduled to meet and conduct a hearing to consider a variance when the petitioner has not demonstrated in the application from the literal provisions of Chapter 7 where their strict enforcement would cause an undue hardship. (Reference Zoning Regulation 5- 7 -11). I am however, personalty concerned with the outdated ineffective and unenforced regulations currently in place in our City Codes. Our Codes surely require updating, and at that time, this issue of signage requested by the proprietors of a structure of this size and magnitude can be addressed. This request most appropriately belongs in the amendment process as outlined in Zoning Ordinance 7.9 Amendments and not in 7.6 par. C Standards dealing in variances. I personally sympathize with your predicament, but I understand that you were aware of our sign ordinances back in late July. (Reference copy of letter). At that time, a request for consideration of sign amendment would have been most prudent. Any efforts to modify sign size and placement at this time surely demonstrates undue hardship, but directly a result of your own doing. In reference to the issues at hand, the commission should recommend to council to act on this issue. I understand that staff has diligently worked on a draft of a revised sign ordinance. Perhaps, this would be an opportune time for our commission to recommend that council redirects staff to finalize this in a format for review in the hearing process, and include a paragraph that would address sign area that would be appropriate to a building of this size. I will introduce a motion at the conclusion of this hearing on this issue. In closing, any consideration for sign variance with regard to this application, having shown no cause or justification with regard to undue hardship would be ill advised, establish inappropriate precedence and is contrary to section (B) in our appeals process. This issue clearly falls within the Amendment process found in our Zoning Ordinance 7.9, as there are no provisions in our sign regulations regarding this appeal. Motion by Commissioner Greenfield at meeting on December 17, 1992: 1 move the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council Instruct staff, or hire an independent consultant, to finalize the draft of a revised sign ordinance, and prepare this final document for the hearing process.