My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 05192009
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2009
>
PL PACKET 05192009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 4:30:23 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 4:30:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
33
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2005-2011
SP Name
PL PACKET 05192009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
J <br /> Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> April 21, 2009 <br /> Page 5 <br /> 1 is being asked and the conditions by which that plan would be allowed. The conditional use <br /> 2 permit would then be voted up or down. There are safeguards with this process and he would be <br /> 3 in support of placing a motion to allow the City Council to have that discussion. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Chair Stromgren stated he had input on some of the items attached to the amendment through <br /> 6 conversations with Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes and Mr. Brever. Specifically the <br /> 7 concerns raised by Mr. Hanson in terms of adding the 250 foot distance were addressed. This <br /> 8 was to deal with tennis courts and hockey rinks and conditions that are too close to homes in his <br /> 9 opinion. In the Concept Review the applicant showed a photo shop rendering showing the <br /> 10 concept they planned which was small signs surrounded by ivy. Concept Review is the time that <br /> 11 the landscaping plan and schedules would be presented. The task tonight relates to the ordinance <br /> 12 change but does not approve any signage to be installed. The total square footage of 24 square <br /> 13 feet for individual signs came from the Concept Review presentation; the quantity discussed at <br /> 14 that time was 10 to 20 signs. This could be part of the conditional use permit. Chair Stromgren <br /> 15 expressed concern that item 5 is open ended and suggested changing it to state that signs may not <br /> 16 be displayed for more than six months out of the calendar year. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Commissioner Jenson noted the question has come up of whether this sets a precedent, such as <br /> 19 with fencing around tennis courts. He stated this needs to be thought through to make sure that <br /> 20 the right precedent is being set for the long term. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Commissioner Chaput noted item #4 states that individual signs cannot exceed 15%. He <br /> 23 suggested amending this to state that the cumulate area of all signs shall not exceed 15%. He <br /> 24 pointed out that there has been discussion about ivy being on the signs,but ivy takes time to <br /> 25 grow. It was mentioned that the conditional use permit would be up to two years; the ivy may not <br /> 26 be established in that time period so they could be looking at vinyl signs attached to a chain link <br /> 27 fence. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Commissioner Heinis suggested addressing illumination under item#2. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Commissioner Jensen noted that the field currently has illumination, and over time will have <br /> 32 more bells and whistles. He inquired whether there was a permitting discussion when the <br /> 33 scoreboard was installed. Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes indicated that staff can provide <br /> 34 information on this. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Commissioner Jensen inquired whether the preferred method would be to include a condition <br /> 37 that the signage would be approved for no longer than a couple of years and then revisited,rather <br /> 38 than creating a temporary use category. He noted in some communities topics that are deemed <br /> 39 sensitive are granted temporary conditional use permits and are subject to review and renewal. <br /> 40 He suggested looking at the 24 square foot area as the maximum sign size, fleshing out language <br /> 41 in the differences between the two sizes, and proposing a cap. There was discussion at the last <br /> 42 Commission meeting,which was to say that the sign area would be no more than 10% of the <br /> 43 fencing area. He suggested the conditions include a requirement that the sign area would be no <br /> 44 more than 10%of the fence area within bulleted items 1-5 of the proposed amendment. He <br /> 45 indicated he would be open to table this to allow for a revision of the language that the school <br /> 46 district would like to advocate since they are the entity being described in the code amendment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.