Laserfiche WebLink
A L. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION 2 <br /> MINUTES, September 18, 1990 <br /> 1 In response to Hansen's question as to whether the staff was shown the • <br /> 2 location of the four signs that were not included in the packet, <br /> 3 VanderHeyden said yes. Hansen said that it is important that detail of this <br /> 4 type be given to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Madden clarified that the sign in the packet was not the same sign that was <br /> 7 erected. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Hansen asked if the applicant consulted with staff before the construction of <br /> 10 the monuments and whether they were ever given any indication regarding <br /> 11 permission for signage. VanderHeyden said they had consulted with staff <br /> 12 and that no commitment had been made regarding signage. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Brownell was concerned about the height of the fence. Werenicz added that <br /> 15 when that issue came up previously it was suggested that there might be a <br /> 16 request for a hand rail because of the drop in the grade. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Murphy said that the ten feet and 150 square feet overall plus the <br /> 19 monument indicates that maybe the variance should address that as well. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Brownell said there is a height problem, plus the 150 square foot problem, <br /> 22 plus the actual number of signs and the actual dimensions which may not be • <br /> 23 correctly stated. He said he is also concerned about the height of the fence. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Madden asked for a picture of the sign. The Commissioners reviewed the <br /> 26 photos and plans brought to the meeting by a representative of the <br /> 27 Company.. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 VanderHeyden said that the first she learned of the change in signs was <br /> 30 tonight's meeting. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Madden said that while the development appears to be a welcome addition <br /> 33 to the community. He doesn't want the Company to feel the Commission is <br /> 34 nit-picking but the petition is lacking. However, there is need for clear <br /> 35 definition and actual sign design presented in advance. And the front yard <br /> 36 fence height should be addressed <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Faust questioned whether all the information has-been provided to the <br /> 39 Commission and to the public for a public hearing to even be opened. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 David P. Newman, from the Nedegaard Construction Company apologized for <br /> 42 any confusion caused. He clarified that a separate sign company constructs •, <br /> 43 the signs. He asked that the public hearing be opened because the request <br /> 44 for sign variance was less in scope than what was presented to the public. <br /> 45 <br />