My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 06152010
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010
>
PL PACKET 06152010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2016 12:58:27 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 4:31:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
33
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2005-2011
SP Name
PL PACKET 06152010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
P <br /> City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> May 25, 2010 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 A. Resolution 10-033• Approving the Request for an Amendment to the Silver Lake Village <br /> 3 Planned Unit Development(PUD) Sign Plan to Allow for the Modification of Existing <br /> 4 Ground Signs and the Addition of One Directional Ground SigiApplicant: St. Anthony <br /> 5 Retail Development. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Planning Commission Member Craig Poucher reported on the concept review and public hearing <br /> 8 held by the Planning Commission on the request for an amendment to the Silver Lake Village <br /> 9 Planned Unit Development(PUD) Sign Plan to allow for the modification of existing ground <br /> 10 signs and the addition of one directional ground sign. He reported that a 41 year resident of the <br /> 11 City spoke at the public hearing regarding his concerns about safety and clutter resulting from <br /> 12 the additional signs. Mr. Poucher stated the Planning Commission voted in two separate motions <br /> 13 on the proposed amendment to the Sign Plan: 1) The first motion was made and approved by <br /> 14 majority vote, the proposed modification of existing ground signs and the addition of a ground <br /> 15 sign at 3800 Silver Lake Road; 2)The second motion was made and approved by unanimous <br /> 16 vote,the addition of a directional sign as proposed by the applicant. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Commissioner Poucher presented the site plan and Photoshop examples of the requested signage. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Commissioner Jenson inquired about the concerns expressed at the public hearing regarding a <br /> 21 potential obstruction of view. Commissioner Poucher replied that most of this concern was in <br /> 22 relation to the proposed new directional sign because it is located at an intersection. There could <br /> 23 also be concern with the proposed location of the new ground sign where traffic will be entering <br /> 24 the parking lot. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 City Manager Morrison clarified that the proposed amendment covers two new signs and <br /> 27 modifications to two existing signs. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Mr. Dale Wenkus, Vice President of Architecture with Doran Companies, and Ms. Brenda <br /> 30 Thomas,Vice President of Property Management with Doran Companies,were present to <br /> 31 answer questions of the City Council. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 Councilmember Stille verified with Ms. Thomas that a two foot increase in height is proposed <br /> 34 for the Cub sign, which includes the one foot addition and one foot cap. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Mr. Wenkus stated for clarification,it is proposed that six feet be added to the Cub sign,which is <br /> 37 located at the most northerly comer. It is proposed that one foot and a one foot cap be added to <br /> 38 the sign in front of Smash Burger. The third sign along Silver Lake Road would be similar in <br /> 39 design to the existing sign in front of Smash Burger. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Mayor Faust questioned why the resolution states a height of 31 feet for the Cub sign while the <br /> 42 amendment being proposed includes a height of 26 feet. Mr. Wenkus explained that the original <br /> 43 PUD included approval for a monument sign at a maximum of 31 feet in height at this location. <br /> 44 It was elected to only put in a sign that is 20 feet high. The request now is for an additional six <br /> 45 feet in height,which remains within the 31 foot height restriction that was originally included in <br /> 46 the CUP. <br /> i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.