My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 06262001
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2001
>
CC PACKET 06262001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:52:43 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:52:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
29
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 2001-2004
SP Name
CC PACKET 06262001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
182
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 Meeting <br /> June 19, 2001 <br /> Page 7 <br /> 1 He added that there could be certain criteria that could be factored into the ordinance <br /> 2 instead. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Commissioner Hanson stated that, since they are creating the ordinance right now, they <br /> 5 did not have to be vague. Vice Chair Stille thought that the redirection of the <br /> 6 Commission gives them more control for when the application does come in. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Commissioner Tillman stated that, in the past, the Planning Commission has not been a <br /> 9 part of determining the actual language. Vice Chair Still agreed with Commissioner <br /> 10 Tillman. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Commissioner Thomas stated that he was comfortable sending this on to the Council if <br /> 13 the Planning Commission specified some of the things they were looking for from the <br /> 14 Council. He mentioned the need to address safety issues, and to determine the <br /> 15 restrictions and cost of the proposed sign. He added that he found many of Mr. Hansen's <br /> 16 comments to be very relevant. <br /> 17 . <br /> 18 Commissioner Hanson indicated that the Council had the power to waive two of the three <br /> 19 proposed readings. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Commissioner Hatch observed that the Commission seemed to be sort of divided on <br /> 22 whether to make,the ordinance specific, or vague. He suggested that they ask.the.Council <br /> 23 what they would rather see from the Commission. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Chair Melsha did not think that the Commission was very divided. He stated that either <br /> 26 there would be conditions that need to be met, or there would be conditions that would be <br /> 27 considered. He did not believe that anyone on the Commission was saying that they <br /> 28 should make the ordinance so specific that they would be identifying kind of sign,etc. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Commissioner Tillman added that operating that specifically would take away a lot of <br /> 31 their power. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Commissioner Hanson stated that he would like to see an updated draft before they make <br /> 34 a recommendation to the City Council. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Vice Chair Stille stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Hanson to postpone <br /> 37 until the end of next month. Ms. Henry indicated that the Council could decide <br /> 38 otherwise. Commissioner Thomas stated that perhaps they should come to more <br /> 39 consensuses this evening. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Vice Chair Stille suggested that they go back to Commissioner Steeves' way of thinking, <br /> 42 and use vague language in order to cater each sign to fit the characteristics of the location. <br /> 43 Chair Melsha stated that he did not have any problem with adopting a recommendation <br /> 44 that says that they want the ordinance to be changed, with the conditional uses in the <br /> 45 memo, as well as safety and aesthetic issues to be considered. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.