My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 02191991
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1991
>
PL PACKET 02191991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:41:29 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:41:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1990-1991
SP Name
PL PACKET 02191991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 2 <br /> November 20, 1990 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: <br /> 3 <br /> 4 A. 7:35 P.M. Nedegaard Construction for Evergreen Townhomes, <br /> 5 3412 Silver Lane, sign variance. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 The hearing was opened at 7:35 with no one present reporting failure to <br /> 8 receive the notice of hearing or objecting to its content. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Assistant to the City Manager VanderHeyden reported the Evergreen <br /> 11 Townhomes signs have been reduced in size and the Nedegaard Company is <br /> 12 asking to place one sign each on four different monuments. In addition, if <br /> 13 approval is recommended of the four signs, the consideration would be for <br /> 14 -the aggregate sign surface area allowed which is 150 sq. ft., Nedegaard is <br /> 15 requesting 200 sq. ft. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 With regard to monuments and sign height, City Attorney, Bill Soth, said that <br /> 18 if the. monument were not approved as a sign they would then have to be <br /> 19 considered as part of the fence. VanderHeyden met with City Manage Tom <br /> 20 Burt and Public Works Director, Larry Hamer, and reported that Nedegaard <br /> 21 was allowed to build the monuments originally because of the Parade of <br /> 22 Homes with the understanding that unless a sign variance was given, it <br /> 23 would be the Company's responsibility to remove or move them. Nedegaard <br /> 24 agreed. <br /> 25 Whether they are allowed a sign variance will be decided at the City Council <br /> 26 meeting next week. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Regarding the fence height, VanderHeyden said she, Burt and Hamer called it <br /> 29 a front yard setback. She added that it should not have been called a front <br /> 30 yard setback because it does not sit on the front yard of any townhome, it is <br /> 31 on the side yard and back yard. In addition, by calling it a front, back or <br /> 32 side yard setback or a setback from the right-of-way, she said it is all a 30 <br /> 33 foot setback: therefore, it does not change what was necessary. It is serviced <br /> 34 by an internal roadway. All the way around it is outside. It is a back or side <br /> 35 yard setback and not a front yard setback. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 For clarification, Hansen sketched his.interpretation of front yard. <br /> 38 VanderHeyden commented that the roadway is a private drive. Discussion <br /> 39 continued regarding the decision of whether the area in question is a "front <br /> 40 yard." VanderHeyden said that she, Burt and Hamer made the <br /> 41 determination because of the way the fence runs along the back and side <br /> 42 yards and in no way physically runs along the front of one of the <br /> 43 townhomes. VanderHeyden also confirmed that that issue is not before <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.