My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 08161994
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1994
>
PL PACKET 08161994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:28:35 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:28:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
20
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1994
SP Name
PL PACKET 08161994
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
Planning Commission Minutes <br /> June 21, 1994 <br /> Page 8 <br /> 1 Commissioner Franzese commented that she thinks the building is wonderful and wants <br /> 2 to do everything to help it succeed. She noted that there are dentists in the Apache <br /> 3 Medical Complex whose names are not on the outside of that building. <br /> 4 Chair Gondorchin closed the public hearing at 8:21 P.M. <br /> 5 Commissioner Faust expressed his concern about the signage and understood that the <br /> 6 Planning Commission had come to an agreement in concept of 32 square feet on each <br /> 7 side and around 64 or 65 total square feet of signage would be aesthetically pleasing <br /> 8 and would keep within the character of Silver Lake Road. Faust stressed that he <br /> 9 personally would have no problem with 32 square feet on each side, but this request is <br /> 10 for 80 square feet. <br /> 11 Chair Gondorchin felt that the existing ordinance creates a hardship for the dental <br /> 12 complex. The Chair is of the opinion that the proposed sign is not only a good <br /> 13 advertising vehicle but it offers a sense of professionalistm He added that there is an <br /> 14 unusual condition because this is a dental facility. Gondorchin also added that the sign <br /> 15 ordinance will be re-examined and he does not think granting a variance is out of line. <br /> 16 The question is how big should the sign be. • <br /> 17 Commissioner Horst felt that there needs to be an established goal and it should be <br /> 18 adhered to. Horst inquired if 32 square feet on each side would be within the realm of <br /> 19 acceptance of the applicant. <br /> 20 Mr. Murlowski responded that a mistake was made when the original sign was <br /> 21 designed -- it was too small. .Murlowski continued to explain how the,size of the sign <br /> 22 was determined. <br /> 23 Commissioner Makowske agreed that there is a hardship with the size of the existing <br /> 24 sign but felt the proposed signage was too large. <br /> 25 Commissioner Thompson indicated he felt the existing sign is unreadable and the <br /> 26 proposed size would not affect the neighborhood in a negative manner. <br /> 27 Commissioner Franzese was concerned about the precedent that recommending <br /> 28 approval of this request would set. <br /> 29 Commissioner Faust offered that because the existing signage of 32 square feet is not <br /> 30 enough, if 6 inches were eliminated from the proposed signage, the total would be very <br /> 31 near the 65 square feet the Planning Commission desires. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.