PL PACKET 11162004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 9 2 Mr. Walker explained that the proposed location and direction for the sign was worked out with 3 Ms. Hall and the Public Works Director. Ms Hall explained that it was determined that the 4 proposed location and direction of the sign is their best option. She clarified that this is not Staff 5 approved stating that Staff did a site visit to review the location. She noted that Staff was 6 requested to review stating that Staff does not have authority to approve. 7 8 Chair Stromgren stated that the Commission has concerns with the size and the fact that it 9 contains advertising text as opposed to strictly directional. 10 11 Commissioner Tillman referenced the proposed location of the sign and suggested that the 12 applicant review and reconsider the southeast corner. Chau Stromgren agreed and asked if there 13 is a specific reason why the southeast corner was not considered. Ms. Hall clarified that the 14 applicant chose this location for directional purposes and reviewed with the Commission. 15 16 Florence Iverson, 2912 Highway 88 asked what happened. She stated that it was her 17 understanding that this was voted down at the last meeting and now they come in with a bigger 18 sign, on the same corner. She stated that the Residents do not like it. She noted that the traffic 19 moves east and west on Highway 88 and asked why it can't be located on the northeast comer. 20 She asked why the sign has to be located across from residential homes in the area. She asked 21 for clarification on the type of paint they plan to use and expressed concerns that it could cause reflection issues when passing cars go by at night. She asked the Planning Commission to reconsider noting that many of the Residents do not like the proposed sign or location. 24 25 Russ Kukula, 2828 Highway 88, stated that things do not appear to be consistent. He expressed 26 concerns stating that the proposed location is not a good spot for the sign. He stated that this is a 27 billboard with advertisement and lighting. He stated that none of the Residents like of and asked 28 the Planning Commission to reconsider this issue. 29 30 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, stated that it appears that the Alderwoods 31 Group is insensitive to the Community and their needs. He stated that the Residents are sensitive 32 to what happens in their community and are upset because this is where they live. He stated that 33 zoning ordinances are in place to protect their community adding that this is the only gateway the 34 Community has. He stated that the cemetery provides uninterrupted green space and Trillium 35 Park noting that it has been a part of the community since 1922 and now customers.-are having 36 difficulty finding them? He indicated that this is one of the easiest cemeteries to find stating that 37 the idea of people having difficulty finding them is surprising to many. He suggested keeping 38 the R1 zone, consider an alternate location for the sign, and allow three smaller directional signs. 39 He stated that this is an important issue to the Residents noting that they are trusting that the 40 Planning Commission is here to protect their interests. 41 42 IX. PUBLIC INPUT 43 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, referenced the words `Funeral Home' on the 4.) side of the Sunset Memorial building and asked the Planning Commission to direct the City 46 Attorney to determine if this is in compliance with an Rl zone. He stated that they have a non-