Laserfiche WebLink
,:: _ i <br />1l�o��ads �1�e� Plan�rin� Cor�anaiss�on <br />�.te�ular I'�Ieeiing <br />�p�°g� '�, 1999 <br />Pa�e 7 <br />Chair Peterson stated he is unaware of the City setting hours of operation for such a sign. <br />Commissioner �tevenson sta#ed lighting times are usually only restricted if a ground� unied <br />spotlight iliuminates a pylon-type af sign. � `,�� <br />, <br />Com�nissioner Hegiand asked why a variance was requested r�ther ihar� ����a�i�n�. Ericson <br />m ni n w�u[�i �c����?�_ allowed. He <br />stated the applicant submitted a building permit unaware th . g <br />expla�ned that a variance application costs less and is mor `edient il�n � r���n�r�� wiuch <br />znvolves the adoption of an ordinance which requires a m� mum o���`City �'i�ux��il ���e�t�r��� <br />,. <br />£ <br />, . .�:, <br />Hegland stated it appear� the probl�m is tlaat I�inderCar�����.�����ting to run a co�t��r�al <br />business on resider�tialty-zoned property. He stated it see�ras ��c��`� �.ppropriate to rezone the <br />property to the actuai use. 4>` <br />�>. <br />Ericson suggested this issue be addressed wl�ile the �`a��p��h�z1s1 <br />Commissioner Miller noted a day care cas� b���'�r <br />thai is correct and the property would not�� eci to <br />Chair Peterson noted at the time of <br />��=� harsh to force a rezoning ai this po� <br />�'� rezoning dur:ng discussion of the� <br />�< <br />importance o skgnage for a�t�mn�� <br />request ���` <br />� <br />as <br />considered. <br />�al t�rot�erty. Ericson stated <br />��_ �,. , <br />�ruction "�iere was:�€� alternative so it may be a littte <br />��V� <br />�time. =� stated���►ay be mor� appropriate to consider a <br />ehe�st�e Plan..� a�r Peterson commented on the <br />��$����, �z����ated his support io consider the variance <br />ta this property is proposed in the future <br />his copv of the Comprehensive Plan and advised it is identified <br />�uty t;otxunercta� <br />�; <br />� <br />; no additxonal pu;''�� input, Chair Peterson closed the pubiic hearing at 7:39 p.m. <br />ssioner Laub ted he would want to be assured the piacement of this signage does not <br />�,�th p1a��� ��t of the trailway. Ericson advised that the trailway would not need to <br />;���, <br />� r�� ���,�e setback. <br />Cor�rrussion�r Si:evenson stated this is correct and when the highway is �.urned back some of the <br />100 feet wili be hrought in closer by means of the trailway, narrowing the current image of <br />Highway 10. �-Ie staied his concerns are wei! addressed that th� sign w►11 not result in a conflict <br />with the trailway. <br />Chair Petersor� concurred. <br />� <br />