My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 04201993
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1993
>
PL MINUTES 04201993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:15:30 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:15:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
19
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1993
SP Name
PL MINUTES 04201993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 /> 2 APRIL 20 , 1993 <br /> 3 PAGE 4 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Commissioner Franzese also inquired if the residential lots <br /> 7 are being marketed. Urbia noted this is being worked on . <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Motion by Franzese, second by Madden to recommend approval of <br /> 10 the preliminary plat for the 27th Avenue/Coolidge Street area <br /> 11 to the City Council . <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Motion carried unanimously <br /> 14 <br /> 15 <br /> 16 B. Petition for Sian Variance, Northaate Office Park <br /> 17 <br /> 18 The Public Hearing was opened at 7 : 24 p.m. Chair Faust read <br /> 19 the notice of Public Hearing which was published in the March <br /> 20 24 , 1993 edition of the Bulletin . <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Staff was requested to contact the management of the Northgate <br /> 23 Office Park to advise the wall sign currently being displayed <br /> 24 was different than the one for which a variance was previously <br /> 25 granted. The Planning Commission felt another variance request <br /> should be made. <br /> 28 Kevin Applequist , a boardmember for the Northgate Office Park, <br /> 29 applied for the variance for the new sign and was in <br /> 30 attendance at the Planning Commission Meeting. He felt this <br /> 31 situation met all of the three requirements for granting a <br /> 32 variance . <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Staff concurred that all of the conditions were met and <br /> 35 recommended approval of the sign variance. It was noted that <br /> 36 a hardship existed in that the current sight lines were poor . <br /> 37 Also, when a variance was granted for a previous sign in this <br /> 38 location a hardship was justified. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Commissioner Werenicz inquired what the dimensions of the new <br /> 41 sign were in that it appeared larger than the previous sign. <br /> 42 Urbia advised the sign is the same size as the first one and <br /> 43 the same metal frame is being used. No modifications were done <br /> 44 to the frame. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 The Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 30 p .m. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Commissioner Franzese felt the sign should be allowed because <br /> 49 of the awkward positioning of the building. This sign would <br /> 50 identify the whole complex which would also be beneficial . <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.