My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-00 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
01-13-00 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2008 2:34:13 PM
Creation date
8/6/2008 2:25:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />JANUARY 13, 2000 <br />Montour asked how the ordinance considered the attachment of <br />individual letters to a building. The Planner reported that the <br />Architectural Guidelines encourage the use of individual letters. <br />The way the sign area is then calculated is that a rectangle is drawn <br />encompassing the letters that the size of that rectangle is used as <br />the sign size. <br />Carson recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit <br />allowing additional signage on a multiple occupancy business <br />building located at 75 West Viking Drive as requested by R. J. <br />Marco Construction subject to compliance with the <br />recommendations of the City Planner. <br />Motion seconded by Montour. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />ALLOWABLE The City Planner reported that there is the need to clarify <br />SETBACK allowable setback encroachments. The issue came up when a <br />ENCROACH- property owner installed a patio up to a property line. The <br />MENTS neighbor questioned whether or not this is allowed, and it is staffls <br /> interpretation that it is allowed under the current ordinance. The <br /> Planner indicated that because of the questions that arose, it was <br /> felt that the ordinance should be clarified. <br />The Planner reviewed a proposed ordinance amendment that <br />redefines decks and patios. He noted that anything over six inches <br />in height would be considered a deck, would require a building <br />permit, and would have to be setback at least five feet from the <br />property line. A patio would be defined as no more than six inches <br />above the immediately adjacent grade at any point within two feet <br />of the patio. <br />Knudsen recommended that a public hearing be called to consider <br />amending the Zoning Code clarifying allowable setback <br />encroachments as recommended by the City Planner. <br />Motion seconded by Montour <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />tx <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.