My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-10-2009
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Packets
>
2009
>
CCP 03-10-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 9:36:07 PM
Creation date
3/6/2009 1:08:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
/, •' .IIS Wr / // <br />Hockland replied the church sign is located further south and they would like to have <br />traffic enter in the northern entrance. <br />Zisla voiced frustration that the applicant has not provided a plan on how the sign will <br />appear on site. Gundlach stated she asked the applicant to provide that information, <br />however due to the short notice he was unable to provide it. Hockland replied that an <br />elevation was provided, and the sign will look similar to the existing church sign. <br />Danger is concerned that the ground lights may cause traffic problems, since the light <br />may bounce into driver's eyes. Hockland replied that they are willing to adjust the <br />location of the lights so they focus back to the sign instead of focusing directly on the <br />sign. <br />Bill Oas, 1105 Pike Lake Circle, opposes the sign and believes it should be co -located on <br />the church sign. <br />Danger asked why the sign is on the north side of the drive versus the south side. <br />Hockland replied there is a deep embankment on the south side that would hinder the <br />location of the sign, while the northern side is higher in elevation with fewer trees <br />impacated. Baker asked if legs could be added to the sign to increase it's height on the <br />south side. Hockland replied that it is a possibility; however there is still the issue of the <br />abundant tree growth in the area. <br />0 Motion by Baker, second by Howard to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />5 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. <br />Baker stated that placing the sign on the south side would be difficult and does not have <br />an issue with the sign being placed at the ten -foot setback on the north side. Howard <br />stated that the criteria has been met, however he is concerned that the sign is too close to <br />the road. He would like to see the sign moved the south side of the drive. Danger asked <br />if the ground lights would be on a timer. Hockland replied that they have not discussed a <br />timer, but would be willing to add a timer so the lights are on during business hours only. <br />Danger would like the lights to be positioned so they face the west and that they have <br />hours of operation, so they are turned off at a specific time. <br />Motion by Danger, second by Zisla to recommend the Council ADOPT THE PROPOSED <br />ORDINANCE WITH CHANGES LISTED BELOW: <br />1. Continued compliance with Final PRD approval Resolution 08-063. <br />2. Prior to construction of the sign, the applicant obtains a Permanent Sign Permit <br />from the City Planner. <br />3. Prior to issuance of a Permanent Sign Permit, the applicant trust submit an <br />updated Photometric Plan verifying the proposed sign lighting will be in <br />compliance with Zoning Code Section 11-010 (6). <br />4. The ground lights are directed at a westerly angle and installed at the east end of <br />the sign in an effort to decrease glare effects when viewed from Long Lake Road <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.