My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 11162004
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2004
>
PL PACKET 11162004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 7:46:18 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 7:46:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
27
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2000-2004
SP Name
PL PACKET 11162004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 Minutes <br /> October 19, 2004 <br /> Page 8 <br /> Commissioner Jensen clarified that the applicant realized, after the fact, that they misinterpreted <br /> 2 the zoning ordinance requirements for sign size in an ROS zone for a double-sided sign. Mr. <br /> 3 Walker confirmed and explained that the zoning was not considered an issue when they designed <br /> 4 the sign to fit within 68-square feet. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Chair Stromgren stated that regardless of the zoning, the second sign is a variance request. He <br /> 7 explained that only one sign is allowable without a variance. Ms. Hall clarified that a variance <br /> 8 request would be required for this sign. Chair Stromgren confirmed and reviewed with the <br /> 9 Commission. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Commissioner Young clarified that in an R1 zone the allowable size for the sign would be 68- <br /> 12 square feet and if in an ROS zone the allowable size would be 150-square feet. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Commissioner Jensen stated that the proposed sign exceeds the allowable size permitted and <br /> 15 asked if the applicant intends to go back and propose a sign that would fit requirements. Mr. <br /> 16 Walker stated that applicant would not due to site lines and speed of traffic. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Mr. Walker.explained that their intent is to direct finding and provide better visibility. <br /> 19 Commissioner Young suggested incorporating an arrow for directional at the top of the sign and <br /> 20 remove references to the crematorium. She asked if the words `Funeral Home' is currently on <br /> 21. the front of the building. Mr. Walker confirmed that it is. <br /> Greg ??, Sunset Memorial Park, stated that they serve approximately 140 families per year at the <br /> 24 funeral home noting that they are licensed by the State of Minnesota to operate as a crematorium. <br /> 25 He referenced the signage issues noting that they have a 138-acre park that does not have <br /> 26 signage along County Road 88 that explains what they are or how to get to them. He explained <br /> 27 that they receive numerous phone calls requesting directions and how to enter the cemetery <br /> 28 adding that the signage would help to alleviate this problem. He stated that at the last meeting <br /> 29 the Planning Commission asked them to go back, redesign and relocate the signs, which is what <br /> 30 they did. He stated that with the number of families who have internments, which also brings a <br /> 31 lot of people to the cemetery to visit, they need signage that would provide them a way to find <br /> 32 entrance to the cemetery. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Commissioner Jensen asked if the law currently allows small directional signage along the <br /> 35 highway. Chair Stromgren clarified directional signage noting that Mr. Walker used the term in <br /> 36 this case due to the speed of travel. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Commissioner Gray clarified that only one variance would be needed for signs if rezoned to ROS <br /> 39 and that ROS zoning allows a maximum of 150-square feet for total combined signage. <br /> 40 Commissioner Jensen noted that the total measurement for the sign is 120-square feet. Ms. Hall <br /> 41 stated that the sign is double-sided and would be a total of 131-square feet. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the directional intent and asked if the sign is in the same corner as <br /> originally proposed. He indicated that public input discussed a request for placement in the <br /> 4-) southeast corner versus the northeast corner. Chair Stromgren agreed noting that the sign is <br /> 46 shown in the same corner with a slight change in direction. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.