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 5 <br /> November 20, 1990 <br /> 1 one appeared in opposition and finding further that the 3 questions required <br /> 2 by the Ordinance have been answered correctly. In addition, if the owners <br /> 3 should come back for an additional variance for more signs, that the <br /> 4 additional variance be declared null and void and that the Company be <br /> 5 required to make a new application. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Aye: -Madden, Faust, Murphy. <br /> 8 Nay: Hansen, Brownell, Werenicz <br /> 9 Motion failed. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Werenicz said his idea would be a compromise. He cannot see having 2 <br /> 12 identical monuments at another driveway one block away that is half,the <br /> 13 width of that driveway. He would not mind a third, angled monument being <br /> 14 placed there. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Hansen said there is a better sign and that is why he disagrees with the <br /> 17 proposal. The signs cannot be seen and they are virtually impossible to see <br /> 18 at night. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Werenicz said that 2 entrances do not justify 4 monuments 10 ft. high. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Faust did not agree with using Autumn Woods, a much larger complex, as a <br /> 23 comparison. He said the proposal is good with the 37 full-time residents and <br /> 24 has an inviting application to the City because it borders on New Brighton. <br /> 25 He does not think it would add any balance to have 3. In fact, Faust said one <br /> 26 at the second entrance would make it appear as a lower or service entrance <br /> 27 vs. a main entrance. He did agree that the measurements need to be <br /> 28 corrected. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Murphy said 2 signs is the variance. The question, he said, is whether the <br /> 31 community is being harmed in any way by approving the 2 additional signs. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Hansen said there is a difference between granting 2 or 4 signs and likened <br /> 34 driving through downtown Crystal with the Las Vegas strip. He also said <br /> 35 that this same developer came back to the City for an additional variance. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Madden said that the positioning of the signs should be the privilege of the <br /> 38 developer. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Murphy questioned whether the Company would consider coming back with <br /> 41 other plans. <br /> 42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.