09-20-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved 10-18-2005 O’Brien asked Mr. Long if the driveway would also be reconfigured. Mr. Long responded that they would be reorientating the existing garage. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion by Baker, Second O’ Keefe by to MOTION CARRIED. 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, After additional discussion by the Commission and Staff there was a Motion by Schiferl, WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE ATTACHED Second by O’Keefe to RESOLUTION APPROVING NC05-03. MOTION CARRIED to recommend APPROVAL. 7 Ayes, 0 Nays. WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE Motion by Schiferl, Second by Baker to ATTACHED RESOLUTION DENYING VN05-03. The Planning Commission directed the City Planner to draft in the denial recommendation the following: There is no undue hardship, because the applicant has reasonable use of their property. MOTION CARRIED to recommend Denial. 7 Ayes, 0 Nays. Public Hearing: SP 05-08 Special Use Permit for Civic Center Campus – Sign Plans Consideration a Special Use Permit application for building and site signs for the New Brighton Civic Campus buildings. The City of New Brighton wishes to establish a Sign Plan for three Civic Campus buildings; City Hall, the Family Service Center and the Public Safety Center. There are several different components: site entry signs, wall signs, ground signs, window signs, special signs and freeway signs. Baker expressed support of the addition of signs for downtown. Boylan added that the City put this special use permit together to allow flexibility for future changes. Howard questioned if the City will know how many signs will be used. Boylan responded that there would be roughly 9 to 13 signs. O’Keefe inquired why tenants would not be added to ground signs. Steve Rymer, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that due to cost efficiency the tenants would have separate wall mounted signs and to show that the City is the primary tenant. Mann and O’Keefe expressed concern that the window signs would be too small and not meet the needs of present and future tenants. Schiferl suggested that if they are on the same sign that the tenant is in a different color or font, to show that they are not part of the city. Baker suggested that the design allow for future expansion for tenants, but that the tenant sign look differently than the City signs. The Planning Commission suggested that Staff remove the following sentence in the Ground Signs: “Only one tenant may be identified on each sign” and to change tenant to tenants. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion by Baker, Second Schiferl by to MOTION CARRIED. 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2005\09-20-05.doc