My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-2017 Council Packet
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
07-26-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 10:28:07 AM
Creation date
7/31/2017 12:01:03 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 13, 2017 <br /> <br /> - 2 - <br />The Associate Planner stated that the second part of the request is to allow <br />this sign to be attached to the west elevation of the screening wall that <br />surrounds their rooftop equipment rather than on a building wall. Staff <br />reviewed this location and determined that this screening is a permanently <br />fixed, heavy duty screening, and it looks like it is architecturally part of the <br />building. <br /> <br />Steve Seviola, Abbott, stated that Abbot is a huge company that does not <br />have much of a presence yet in the Midwest and they want to get their <br />name out there. He showed close up photos of the building area where they <br />want to install the new sign. <br /> <br />The Associate Planner stated that staff believes both requests by Abbott are <br />consistent with the intent of the PUD District and the City’s architectural <br />guidelines. <br /> <br /> There were no comments from the public. <br /> <br />Schwalbach recommended approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan <br />amendment to allow a wall sign up to 191 square feet on the west elevation <br />mounted to the screen wall surrounding the mechanical equipment. <br /> <br />Motion seconded by Davison. <br />Motion carried 5 – 0. <br /> <br /> <br /> The Associate Planner explained that in Section 1001.060.A of the <br />subdivision ordinance, it defines when a request would be deemed a simple <br />subdivision. She stated that as the code currently reads, a request that <br />would create three lots would be exempted, but the intent and practice was <br />for subdivision requests in which three or less lots would be created. She <br />noted that this does not change how simple subdivision requests have been <br />handled, but is really a housekeeping item to fix the City Code language so <br />it is consistent with past practice. <br /> <br /> There were no comments from the public. <br /> <br />Kwapick recommended adopting Ordinance 815, modifying Chapter 1001, <br />Section 060.A of the Subdivision Code. <br /> <br />Motion seconded by Schwalbach. <br />Motion carried 5 – 0. <br /> <br />AMEND CHAPTER <br />1001.060 OF THE <br />CITY CODE <br />PERTAINING TO <br />SUBDIVISIONS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.