My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 05121989
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1989
>
PL PACKET 05121989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:39:30 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:39:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1989
SP Name
PL PACKET 05121989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
I not larger than 150 square feet in sign surface area. The variance <br /> 2 request is for two additional signs totaling an additional 42 square <br /> 3 feet in sign surface area. <br /> 4 The Chair read the notice of the hearing which had been published in the <br /> 5 February 8th Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of record within <br /> 6 200 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to <br /> 7 receive the notice or objected to its content. <br /> 8 Staff Report <br /> 9 >Ms. VanderHeyden, in her March 31st memorandum, had advised that the <br /> 10 store frontage was 140 feet for which only one sign no larger than 150 <br /> 11 square feet was allowed by the Sign Code and that the additional 42 <br /> 12 square feet of canopy sign would bring the store's total signage to <br /> 13 192 square feet. <br /> 14 >Her memorandum had related the justifications the applicants <br /> 15 perceived for allowing the variance and pointed out that this business <br /> 16 had only one frontage and was not located on a corner. <br /> 17 >The Assistant to the City Manager had also suggested a compromise <br /> 18 under which the wall signage could be removed in exchange for the two <br /> 19 canopy signs. <br /> 20 >Mr. Childs reported that the canopy signs were erected without City <br /> 21 permission around the first of the year and when drawn to the <br /> 22 applicant's attention, the Salvation Army had opted to seek a variance <br /> 23 to keep the additional signage. <br /> 24 >Mr. Childs said the matter was scheduled to come before the Planning <br /> 25 Commission February 21st but that meeting had been cancelled because <br /> 26 of a lack of a quorum and was rescheduled for April 5th instead. <br /> 27 >The City Manager reported staff had received no calls either for or <br /> 28 against the variance since the Notice of Hearing had been published. <br /> 29 >Photos. of the three signs were included in the agenda packet. <br /> 30 Dan Kaufman of Kaufman Sign Company <br /> 31 >Took full responsibility for putting up the non-conforming signage, <br /> 32 indicating a salesman who was no longer with the firm had assured the <br /> 33 sign company that he had cleared-erection of the signs with the City. <br /> 34 . >Said* the Salvation Army .had asked him to do everything he could to <br /> 35 keep the signs up and suggested a compromise under which the 3 X 16 <br /> 36 "Furniture" panel could be taken down to reduce the .total square <br /> 37 footage to 144 square feet, which would meet the City's requirements. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.