My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 04191994
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1994
>
PL PACKET 04191994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:28:06 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:27:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
20
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1994
SP Name
PL PACKET 04191994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 City of St. Anthony <br /> 2 Planning Commission Meeting <br /> 3 February 15, 1994 <br /> 4 Page 2 <br /> 5 Staff Repor <br /> 6 Management Assistant Bellefuil told the Commissioners that the applicant had put the sign up <br /> 7 and was later informed by the Public Works Director.that the sign was not in compliance with <br /> 8 the sign ordinance. Mr. Freed, in his petition, requested approval for a directional sign. <br /> 9 However, after visiting the site, City Manager Burt and the Management Assistant Bellefuil <br /> 10 determined that the sign was not a directional sign be"caise the sign was too big (the maximum <br /> 11 for a directional sign is 5 square feet, which would be 2-1/2 square feet per side if it was a <br /> 12 double sided directional sign); and, the sign did not provide ingress or egress information. <br /> 13 Mr. Burt and Ms. Bellefuil felt this was an informational ground sign However, it was not a <br /> 14 true ground sign either because the base is not solid and there is an opening under the sign. <br /> 15 They also looked at the size of the site, which is large and the building is also large. The <br /> 16 location hasabout 155,000 square feet and the building is about 90,000 square feet. The only <br /> 17 other sign is a large ground sign on the comer. This, in essence, may be the hardship because <br /> 18 it has double frontage. The sign cannot be seen when travelling south down Old Highway 8. <br /> 19 Discussio <br /> 20 When asked how long the sign had been up, Mr. Freed said since October, 1994. The <br /> 21 applicant assured the Commissioners that the sign would not have installed had they been <br /> 22 aware of the ordinance. <br /> 23 Commissioner Franzese asked Mr. Freed if he had been involved with the installation of the <br /> 24 first sign and he indicated he had not. Franzese recalled that at the time the first sign was <br /> 25 installed the Planning Commissioners felt it could not be easily seen by Highway 88 travellers. <br /> 26 She indicated she feels that the additional signage is needed and asked if signage on the <br /> 27 building would be more appropriate. Mr. Freed said the second sign is even now obscured by <br /> 28 snow and that a sign on the building might be better. <br /> 29 Commissioner Franzese asked if StratigiCare pleased with the second sign. Mr. Freed <br /> 30 indicated they are happy with it and that the sign eliminated the problem they had with <br /> 31 delivery persons finding their location. <br /> 32 Commissioner Thompson said he doesn't believe nearby residents are bothered by the sign. <br /> 33 Bellefuil indicated she had sent letters to all owners of properties in sight of the building and <br /> 34 she only received one response which asked "What sign, are they putting up a new sign?" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.