Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION 3 <br /> November 20, 1990 <br /> 1 them during this meeting; but that the three would meet again to review the <br /> 2 problem. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Madden asked if Burt decided not to attend Planning Commission meetings. <br /> 5 VanderHeyden confirmed that was the understanding.when she was hired. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Brownell added that sig months ago there was lengthy discussion regarding <br /> 8 the determination of "front yard." <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Faust wanted to know whether the fence issue had ever been brought up <br /> 11 before. Madden said he brought up the issue that there was a significant <br /> 12 drop-off from street level down to the grade inside the townhouse complex. <br /> 13 His concern was for pedestrians who could be endangered. Because the <br /> 14 basement was put in incorrectly, there was a variance request for setback. <br /> 15 Madden suggested that a fence be added. VanderHeyden said that a fence is <br /> 16 required by the State Housing Code. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Brownell clarified that the request is.for a sign and the structure is a sign. <br /> 19 VanderHeyden said that this is referred to as the sign surface area. In this <br /> 20 case, Brownell pointed out, the facia of this monument is considered the <br /> 21 surface area--not the other three sides. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Hansen said the only other single side examples would be signs on surfaces <br /> 24 of buildings. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Public hearing opened at 7:47. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 David Newman from Nedegaard Construction Co. said the signs are aesthetic <br /> 29 and attractive in appearance. To his knowledge no one opposes the signs. <br /> 30 Newman maintained that the hardship exists with 37 property owners who <br /> 31 should have signs at the two driveways entering the property. The signs <br /> 32 will not be lit. Because the monuments are distinctive, Newman said they <br /> 33 are part of the effort to achieve a neighborhood effect. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Madden reminded Newman that addresses should not be included.on signs <br /> 36 at the entrances of the horseshoe roadway. He said that should a request <br /> 37 come back asking for addresses, the initial variance would then be null and <br /> 38 void. Newman said that from his experience, there is no need for addresses. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Werenicz found a discrepancy in measurements. Newman assured the <br /> 41 Commissioners that the Company would prefer to be a bit under what was <br /> 42 stated in- size. Werenicz said the importance of whether the measurement is <br /> 43 50 or 43 sq. ft. for the plans makes a difference in whether the discussion is <br />