My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-01
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Minutes-Board Or Commission PLZ 00900
>
2001
>
06-01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2007 12:48:14 PM
Creation date
5/24/2007 12:44:11 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes -June 19, 2001 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />6 Ayes – 0 Nays, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH IMPLEMENTATION <br />Motion by, seconded by, to <br />OF COUNTY FINDINGS REGARDING A WARRANT FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENT AND <br />ADOPTION OF THAT IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. <br /> 5 Ayes – 1 Nay, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Public Hearing: R01-03 - Rezoning – 2051 Silver Lake Road from B-3 to B-2 <br />Consideration of rezoning of the property at 2051 Silver Lake Road from B-3 General Business to B-2 <br />Neighborhood Business. The purpose of the request is to come into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan <br />which calls for the future land use of that particular corner property to a neighborhood business. The Land <br />Planning Act of 1995, calls for the city’s Comprehensive Plan to take precedence over zoning code. Therefore <br />our properties must be rezoned to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the <br />rezoning and believes that the rezoning is consistent with the city’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />There were no comments from the audience. <br /> <br />CLOSE THE HEARING <br />Motion by___ seconded by ____ to . 6 Ayes – 0 Nays, Motion Carried. <br /> <br /> <br />RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF R01-5, REZONING 2051 SILVER LAKE ROAD <br />Motion by, seconded by, to <br />FROM B-3, GENERAL BUSINESS TO B-2 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. <br /> 6 Ayes – 0 Nays, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Public Hearing: VN01-03, Sign Variance for Salem Baptist Church, 2351 Rice Creek Road <br /> <br />The proposed sign would be placed at the entrance of the church off of Rice Creek Road. Currently a ground <br />sign is located at the church property at the corner of Rice Creek and Silver Lake Road. This particular property <br />is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and Institutional or religious use like churches is allowed and the code <br />calls for allowing only one ground sign. The lot size is over 170,000 square feet. There has been a church on <br />that site for some time. Surrounding land use includes single family residential to the north, the just rezoned B-2 <br />district to the north as well. Some higher density residential and the city’s golf course which is zoned R-1. <br /> <br />The staff’s recommendation is for denial of the request for a variance for the second ground sign. The staff <br />feels there would not be a hardship placed if the second ground sign is not allowed. The staff feels that the <br />current ground sign is sufficient for guests traveling along Silver Lake Road and Rice Creek to get an access to <br />the site and be able to determine it is indeed a church. <br /> <br />Diane Hitchcock, area resident, spoke stating concerns it would be a lighted sign. She did not feel there was <br />any trouble with people finding the entrance. <br /> <br />Verlyn Vander Lugt, Property Mgmt of Salem Baptist Church and author of a letter outlining the church’s <br />position, dated May 31, 2001, spoke next. Salem has approximately 880 feet of frontage on Silver Lake Road <br />and Rice Creek Road and yet is limited to one driveway which is very near the end of this frontage. The <br />driveway is located approximately 420 feet from where the existing sign is located, that being the location of <br />Silver Lake Road and Rice Creek Road. A sign placed at the entrance to the parking lot would greatly aid in <br />directing people from this intersection onto the site, especially after daylight hours. Mr. Vander Lugt described <br />the driveway as being partially obscured and felt placement of the sign would lessen the potential for accidents. <br /> He also stated Salem has been a resource to the community for many programs and activities. Mr. Vander <br />Lugt gave historical background of the application made and permit granted and a pedestal was installed, <br />conduit placed and then being informed the sign was in violation of a city ordinance. This led to the current <br /> <br />request for a variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner asked Mr. Vander Lugt if they could suffice with one or two smaller signs for which they would <br />need no permit. Mr. Vander Lugt reported it was felt a sign(s) of that size would be of little or no benefit. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.