Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090805P & Z MinutesPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 5, 2009 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Fiorendino, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek. Commission Members absent-Thompson Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), Kevin Hansen (Public Works Director), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Fio~endino, seconded by Schmitt, to approve the minutes from the meeting ofJuly 7, 2009. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2009-0801 APPLICANT: Jeff, Sobby & Steve's Autoworld LOCATION: 3701 Central Ave REQiTEST: Conditional Use Permit for LED Sign INTRODUCTION Sargent explained that on August 25, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1553, allowing the use of dynamic LED signs tliroughout the City. The intent of this ordinance was to permit dynamic LED signs only as an integral part of a monument sign, with the exception of motor fuel stations, which may utilize such signage on existing pylon signs in order to display fuel prices only. It was discovered that the language specifying that motor fuel stations may only utilize dynamic LED signs as a part of existing pylon signs to display only fuel prices was inadvertently omitted from the ordinance. For this reason, the City Council issued a moratorium for dynamic LED display signage at the July 13, 2009 City Council Meeting. The reason for the moratorium was to give stafftime to study and possibly amend the ordinance so that the original intent of Ordinance 1553 could be met. Prior to the issuance of the moratorium, Jeff's Bobby and Steve's Autoworld submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit in order to utilize a dynamic LED display sign as a part of their existing pylon sign. Although the original intent of Ordinance 1553 was to allow dynamic LED displays on pylon signs for motor fuel stations to indicate fuel prices only, the current language of the ordinance does not specify this restriction. Because the applicant filed the application prior to the issuance of the inoratoriuin, the City Attorney's legal opinion was that this application would be allowed for processing, and the request would be subject to the current language of the ordinance. Staff recognizes the necessity to amend the Zoning Code pertaining to dynamic LED display signs to better reflect the spirit and intent of the original ordinance. Sargent said the current language pertaining to dynamic LED displays gives an unfair advantage to motor fuel stations that currently have pylon signs. For example, the ordinance would not allow for a non-motor fuel station business to display an LED sign on their existing pylon sign. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 AUGUST 5, 2009 However, with this said, staff also recognizes that the applicant submitted his application in good faith and with the understanding that a dynamic LED display would be allowed on a pylon sign for his business. For this reason, staff will process the application and apply the Findings of Fact and other requirements based on the current ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for commercial use. The use of signs helps promote the economic vitality of the city, which is a specific goal of the comprehensive plan. For this reason, the proposed use of a sign is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING ORDINANCE The property is zoned GB, General Business, as are the properties to the north and west. The properties to the east are zoned for one and two family residential use. The property to the south lies in the City of Minneapolis. Pylon signs are considered to be legally non-conforming uses along Central Avenue. The Design Guidelines, which were adopted in 2005, restricted all new freestanding signs to monument signs only. For this reason, all existing pylon signs were "grandfathered in", and are allowed to continue their existence unless removed for a period of one year. Altering pylon signs is permitted, as long as the overall square footage of the sign does not increase. The applicant is proposing to replace 33.5 square feet of existing signage with a 33.5-square-foot dynamic LED display sign. The overall square footage of the sign will not increase. Dynamic LED display signage may also occupy no greater than 50% of the overall square footage of the sign. The current pylon sign is 75.8 square feet. The total amount of LED signage will be less than 50% of the overall square footage of the sign. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines nine conditions that must be met in order for the City Council to grant a Conditional Use Permit. They are as follows: (a) The use is one of the conditional uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Digital LED signs a~e specifically listed as a Conditional Use in the GB, General Business District. (b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The CompNehensive Plan designates this area for commercial development that includes goals for cofnme~cial and economic development. These goals include: stNengthening the image of the community as a desiNable place to live and work, pNOViding opportunities and mechanisms for successful Nedevelopment of targeted areas, preserving and enhancing the existing commercial areas within the community, advocating high quality development and redevelopment within the community, and enhancing the economic viability of the community. The applicant's proposal for a digital LED sign is consistent with these goals, as the sign will be used to promote the economic vitality of the city. (c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. The applicant will have to abide by specific development standards as they relate to LED signs. These standards were adopted to help ensure a limiting disturbing influence on neighboNing pNOperties. Given the location of the proposed sign and its orientation to CentNal Avenue, staff feels that the use will not impose hazards on the neighboring p~operties. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 AUGUST 5, 2009 (d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. The use of property in the immediate vicinity will not be diminished by the placement of a digital LED sign at 3701 Central Avenue. (e) The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is compatible with the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area. The applicant will be requi~ed to abide by specific development standaNds as they Nelate to LED signs. These standaNds will help ensure compatibility with the appearance of the existing surNOUnding area. (~ The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public facilities and services. This is correct. (g) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic. The use of a digital LED sign at this location will not affect tr°affic. (h) The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of other uses is the immediate vicinity. By subjecting the use of a digital LED sign to specific development standards, it is intended that the use will not cause a negative cumulative effect. (i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located. This is correct. Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP for a digital LED sign for Jeff's Bobby and Steve's Autoworld, located at 3701 Central Avenue. uestions from members: Szurek asked if they would be held to the same standards as the Liquor Stores. Sargent stated they would and that their messages can't change more often than every 10 minutes. She asked if the owner is aware of that, and Sargent said they were. Sclunitt asked why this sign is being "grandfathered in" when the NE Business Center sign wasn't. Sargent explained that they may reface the existing sign as long as they don't expand it. He went on to explain that when the Sign Ordinance was adopted last year, NE Business Center (and two other businesses) were given a one month alert to bring their signs into compliance in regards to the inessaging display. The pylon signs themselves were "grandfathered in", but the message portion would need to meet the new criteria set in the Ordinance. The new owners of that business center decided not to use the existing sign. Schmitt asked how long the moratorium would be in place? Sargent said the amendment clarifying the ordinance language should be on the September agenda. Schmitt noted that she would like to see the time period on the messages change from 10 minutes to 3 minutes. It would allow customers traveling down the road to see more messages regarding the businesses. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 AUGUST 5, 2009 Fiorendino disagreed with her. He felt 10-minute intervals were good. Three minutes intervals would cause traffic problems by distracting drivers. Peterson asked how many lines of printed message there would be. Sargent said that would vary depending on the message being displayed, but felt that 3 lines would most often be used. Peterson felt it would be a safety hazard if too many lines were displayed to distract driver's attention away from the road. He also agreed that three-minute interval changes would be acceptable. Peterson asked how many pylon signs could be affected if the language is left as is. Sargent said it could affect the four gas stations that have existing pylon signs-Holiday, Superamerica, Jeff, Bobby & Steve's, and the Speedy Mart on 40th and University. He said we would be creating non-conforming uses and if the business use changed, it would create a violation of the Ordinance. Sargent pointed out that it creates an unfair advantage to these businesses over others that can't do this, and the intent of the original ordinance is not being met. He explained that in the Ordinance passed we made an exception to allow Pylon Signs for gas stations to display gas prices only. We failed to stipulate "price only" so this created a loop hole. Peterson asked if the intent was to exclude this possibility? Sargent stated it was, and that is why the moratorium was put in place so the correction could be made to the language. Peterson then stated he thought the owner should voluntarily abide by the intent of the ordinance, knowing an exception was already made especially for them to display gas prices, especially since the clarification is being made, so that he doesn't have any special rights over other businesses in town. Public Hearing Opened: No one wished to speak on this matter. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Schmitt, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit.for a for a digital LED sign for Jeff's Bobby and Steve's Autoworld, located at 3701 Central Avenue, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. The dynamic LED signs may occupy no more than fifty percent (50%) of the actual copy and graphic aNea. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic LED signs, even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. 2. The dynamic LED sign may not change o~ move inore often than once every ten (10) minutes, except one for which changes aNe necessaNy to coNNect hour-and-mznute, date, oN temperature infoNmation. 3. A display of time, date o~ temperature info~mation may change as fi°equently as once every ten (10) seconds, however infoNmation displayed not relating to the date, time or temperatu~e must not change or move more often than once eveNy ten (10) minutes. 4. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition fNOm one state display to anotheN must be instantaneous without any special effects. Motion, animation and video images are prohibited on dynamic LED sign displays. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 AUGUST 5, 2009 5. The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image oN message or to any other sign. 6. The dynamic LED signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction shall occur. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynanzic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standaNds of this ordinance. 7. The dynamic LED signs may not exceed a maximum illumination of S, 000 nits (candelas peN square meter) during daylight houNS and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas pe~ squaNe mete~) between dusk to dawn as measured fNOm the sign's face at maximum b~ightness. The dynamic LED signs must have an automatic dimme~ contNOl to produce a distinct illumination change from a higher illumination level to a lower level fo~ the time period between one-half hour before sunset and one half-hour after sunrise. Roll Call: Szurek and Fiorendino-aye Schmitt and Peterson-nay MOTION FAILED. This matter will go to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission on August 10, 2009. CASE NUMBER: 2009-0802 APPLICANT: Mr. BBQ LOCATION: 4621 Central Avenue REQUEST: 5-foot setback variance and a 5-foot height variance INTRODUCTION Sargent explained that on December 2, 2008, Mr: BBQ was granted a site plan approval to install a new monument sign for the business located at 4621 Central Avenue. At that time, the applicants stated that they would place the monument sign 6 feet from the front property line and the sign would also meet all other sign code regulations. As the applicants went through the construction process for the sign, they realized that the property line was not where they previously anticipated it would be. After completing a survey of the property, it was revealed that the property line was located approximately 1 foot from the hard surface parking area for the restaurant, leaving no room to place a monument sign. Sargent stated the applicant is now requesting two variances. The first is a 5-foot front yard setback variance for a monument sign per Code Section 9.106 (P)(12)(a) 3, to enable the applicants to place to monument sign as close to Central Avenue as possible. Placing the sign on the front property line would also alleviate the applicants from locating the sign in the middle of the parking lot. The second variance request is a 5-foot height variance per Code Section 9.106 (P)(12)(a) 3, to enable the monument sign to be 13 feet in height. The applicants stated that the proposed location of the monument sign - abutting the front property line - would be directly adjacent to required on-site parking. If a car were to park next to an 8-foot high sign; the sign would be blocked from view. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 AUGUST 5, 2009 ZONING ORDINANCE The property at 4621 Central Avenue is located in the General Business District (GB), as are the properties to the north and south. The properties to the east are zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential and the properties to the west are in the City of Hilltop. The subject parcel is also located within the Design Overlay Highway District, and is subject the regulations for such properties. The City Code at Section 9.106 (P)(12) states that monument signs in the GB District shall be limited to 40 square feet per side, eight (8) feet in height, and shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from all property lines. The applicant's sign plan iridicates that the monument sign will be 40 square feet in area, thirteen (13) feet in height and placed directly on the front property line. For this reason, a 5-foot height variance and 5=foot front yard setback variance are required. PARKING The property currently has 21 parking stalls for customer parking. The number of parking stalls for the restaurant will remain unchanged, as the proposed monument sign will be located next to the parking area along the front property line. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for coinmercial development that includes goals for commercial and economic development. These goals include: strengthening the image of the community as a desirable place to live and work, providing opportunities and mechanisms for successful redevelopment of targeted areas, preserving and enhancing the existing corrunercial areas within the community, advocating high quality development and redevelopment within the community, and enhancing the economic viability of the community. The applicant's proposal for a monument sign is consistent with these goals, as the sign will be used to promote the economic vitality of the city. FINDINGS OF FACT (Variances) Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five fmdings of fact that must be met in order for the City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause undue hardship. Setback Variance: The properry previously utilized pylon sign when Cousin's Subs occupied the space. Since then, the pylon sign was destroyed but neve~ Neplaced. Being that the Design Guidelines only permit monument signs, a monument sign would be the only type of fNeestanding sign that the business could incoNpo~ate. Presently, the fNOnt property line is located app~oximately 1 foot from the parking lot, leaving very little room to place a monument sign. If a monument sign were located in a position consistent with the Sign Code, the sign would have to be placed in the dNive aisle for the paNking lot, rending the parking lot useless. In this case, the haNdship is the cu~rent location and proxi~nity of the parking lot in relation to the front pNOperty Zine. PLANNING & ZONING COMIV~SSION MII~IUTES PAGE 7 AUGUST 5, 2009 Height Variance: The applicant stated that even if the sign were placed directly on the fi~ont property line, it would be obstr~ucted from view if a car were parked next to it in the parking lot. The requested height variance would enable foN this potential problem to be co~rected. Staff feels that this rationale is not a suitable hardship foN such an extreme variance ~equest. If the setback vaNiance were granted, the sign would be placed as close to the fi°ont pr~operty line as possible and should alleviate any type of visibility issues. b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. This pa~cel does not have any private green space where a monument sign might be located because the imp~ovements were constructed at a time whe~e placing a monument sign on the property was not a concern. Although every pNOperty along Central Avenue in the General Business District is unique in its layout, it would not be unreasonable to assume that there is more than one paNCel that does not have ample room in the front of the pNOpeNty to place a monument sign. c) The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The applicant bought the property after the previous pylon sign had been removed and the placement of the driveway and parking areas we~e alNeady established. The hardships stated by the applicant are caused by the pNeexisting configuration of the building and parking a~eas on the land. d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial development that includes goals for commercial and economic development. These goals include: strengthening the image of the community as a desirable place to live and work, providing opportunities and mechanisms for successful ~edevelopment of targeted areas, prese~ving and enhancing the existing comme~cial areas within the community, advocating high quality development and redevelopment within the community, and enhancing the economic viability of the community. The applicant's pNOposal for a monument sign is consistent with these goals, as the sign will be used to profnote the economic vitality of the city. e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. Setbaek Variance: GNanting the setback variance would not be materially detri~nental to the public in that it would help place the monument sign away from on-site vehicular traffic and would also enable patrons a better opportunity to view the sign. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 AUGUST 5, 2009 Height Variance: A S foot height variance is too extr~eme and would cause a dispNOportional view of the property, which would not be to scale with the existing building. A 13 foot sign is equivalent to the height of a one-story building and would look out of place on a small sized comfnercial p~^operty. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 5-foot front yard setback variance in that there exists a suitable hardship to justify the request. However, staff recommends denial of the 5-foot height variance because of a lack of hardship and the potential negative impacts that a 13-foot-tall monument sign might present. uestions from members: Peterson noted that several other businesses along Central Avenue have met the setback requirements. He asked how many businesses such as this one would have trouble doing so. Sargent stated he had not taken a survey of all the businesses, so he did not have a number. He pointed out that the Right of Way along Central Avenue varies and existing parking lots that were placed there years ago cause hardship for some businesses, such as this one, to meet the setback requirements for monument signs. If the sign were installed according to the requirements, it would literally be in the middle of their parking lot. Peterson asked if the parking or green area would be affected if the sign is placed where they request. Sargent said parking would not be affected and there is little green space on this property. The boulevard area depicted on the picture is actually the Highway Right of Way. He stated the commission could require some landscaping or curbing around the sign as a condition of approval. Szurek asked what the height allowance is for monument signs? Sargent explained that it is 8 feet for one story buildings and up to 10 feet for buildings that are 22 feet or higher. Schmitt stated she agrees with stafFthat since this sign is so close to the street, the extra height being requested would be too much. She doesn't think the pylon sign to the north of this site will cause a problem for this sign. She also agrees that the monument sign should have some protection around it, as it is so close to the driveway. Fiorendino asked whether the sign will go through any other approval process. Sargent stated that it already was approved as part of the site plan and that a building permit will be necessary to install it. He stated that one of the conditions noted is that the base will need to match the exterior of the building. The consensus of the members present was they agree with staff to grant the setback variance and to deny the variance for additional height. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 AUGUST 5, 2009 Public Hearing Opened. No one wished to speak. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Comrnission recommends the City Council approve the 5-foot front yard setback variance for a monument sign per Code Section 9.106 (P)(12)(a) 3 of the City Code, subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. The base of the monument sign will be constructed of a masonry or brick base to match the principal structure. 3. The applicants will obtain a building permit for the sign prior to construction of the monument sign. 4. There will be curbing and landscaping around the base of the sign to ensure public safety. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. The following Resolution will go to the City Council for consideration August 10, 2009. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR MR. BBQ WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2009-0802) has been submitted by Mr. BBQ to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 4621 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Ha1L THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 5-foot front yard setback variaiice for a inonument sign per Code Section 9.106 (P)(12)(a) 3. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission l~as held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on August 5, 2009; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the suirounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Plamiing Commission: PLANNING & ZONING COMIVIISSION MINiJTES PAGE 10 AUGUST 5, 2009 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, where strict adherence to the provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship. 2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any person currently having legal interest in the property. 4. The granting of the variance is in hai7nony with the general purpose and intent of the Coinprehensive Plan. 5. The granting of the variance will not be inaterially detrimental to the public welfare or materially ~ injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached plans, inaps, and other information shall become part of this variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS ATTACHED.• 1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive infonnation submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. 2. The base of the monument sign will be constructed of a masonry or brick base to match the principal structure. 3. The applicants will obtain a building permit for the sign prior to construction of the monument sign. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 5-foot height variance for a monument sign for Mr. BBQ, located at 4621 Central Avenue because of the lack of a justifiable hardship and because granting the variance would cause potential negative impacts to the public and surrounding properties. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. The following Resolution will go to the City Council for consideration August 10, 2009. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XX RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUNIBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR MR. BBQ WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2009-0802) has been submitted by Mr. BBQ to tlie City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 4621 Central Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On File at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: a 5-foot height variance for a momm~ent sign per Code Section 9.106 (P)(12)(a) 3. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on August 5, 2009; PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 1VIINUTES PAGE 11 AUGUST 5, 2009 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic; property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety, in the surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ItESOLVED by the City Council of thc City of Columbia Heights that the City Council does accept and shall adopt the following findings of the Planning Commission: 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, where strict adherence to the provisions of this Ordinance would cause undue hardship. There is a lack of hardship needed to support the variance. 2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are uiiique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. Although every property along Central Avenue in the General Business District is unique in its layout, there are very few properties in which the only location of a monument sign would be directly abutting and adjacent to parking stalls. 3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any person currently having legal interest in the property. There is a lack of hardship needed to support the variance. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote the economic vitality of the City. Granting the variance request would assist in achieving this goaL 5. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. A 5-foot height variance is too extreme and would cause a disproportional view of the property, causing material detriment to the public welfare. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that said variance requests are denied based on the following: l. There is a lack of viable hardship to justify the requested variance. Granting the variance would permit a structure that would be disproportionate to the remainder of the property and would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. NEW BUSINESS None at this time. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 AUGUST 5, 2009 OTHER BUSINESS Review Concept Plan for 49th Avenue Pedestrian Brid~e: Kevin Hansen explained that staff has been working on replacement of the pedestrian bridge at 49th and Central as part of the Federal Stimulus Program. He reviewed the items that are currently being worked on, such as, environmental issues, obtaining Right of Way easements or rights, the design of the bridge, and securing the funds. The City needs to deliver the coinplete plan by November 13, 2009, or it will lose $2.5 million in Stimulus Funds. Hansen explained the new bridge will have a spiral access on the east side and a switchback access on the west side. He also stated the bridge would be relocated about 30-50 feet further south from the intersection to increase visibility of the intersection and of the stoplights. Hansen said they will incorporate the Design Guidelines into the design of the bridge. He is currently gaining input from the public on which design is preferred from four potential plans he has for viewing. Two of the potential designs use a truss style design and two use a beain supported flat deck style. He is looking for any comments the members have on this project as he has to move quickly in order to get the project ready to go by the November deadline. He said the biggest hurdle is obtaining all the right of ways. Peterson was disappointed that the west side will still have a switchback access. He wondered how balanced it will look with a spiral access on the east side. He is concerned that the underside of the switchback will look "closed in".. Hansen explained the new accesses will be larger than the previous ones as they will have to meet all ADA requirements which is a condition of obtaining the funding. He said this could impact the visibility of the Saver's site, however, he felt the visibility of the businesses on the Hilltop side will be better due to relocating the bridge a little more to the south. Most members liked the truss style design. Hansen said that design is the most popular froin those he has heard from. Schmitt however, liked the beam-supported style, but also recognized it would be nice to eliminate the need for a center support for visibility reasons. Hansen said staff is also looking at aesthetic treatments such as lighting and city identification as the gateway to our community. As stated earlier, the plan must be complete by November, bidding would take place between December and February, and construction would take place in the summer of 2010. Comprehensive Plan Sargent reported that staff received word from the Met Council that the Comprehensive Plan Update is considered complete and is in the process of review. The City should hear something by November on whether any additional information will be needed. The meeting was adj ourned at 8:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary