My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-156
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-156
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2007 5:06:46 PM
Creation date
2/23/2007 10:08:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
,. <br />Board of Review -3- <br />Councilman Hartt indicated: that the proposed ordinance for <br />amortization is indefinite, but that the Board of Review may want <br />~o consider a form ofsuch action in this case. <br />Anderson noted that the existing signs on 5th St. are unattractive` <br />and hat the wall signs on the buildings. are ineffective because of <br />their great setback. Anderson further. stated that he could see rto <br />problem with the sign for 5th 5t. and that because the property is <br />not-easily identified could see no problem with leaving the existing <br />3501 sign ss is. <br />Motion by Harty, seancded by ,Anderson, to recommend approval <br />of VN-156 with the- following conditions; <br />1. That such sign on 5th 5t. be setback 30 feet from the property <br />line on 5th St. and 15' from the E-Z Mini Storage driveway; <br />2. -That all other signs on the property be removed with the <br />. exception of small wall signs on the interior of the project <br />that are not legible from 5th St. NG~T or I-35W, and e~ccept <br />for the existing sign along I-35T~T, <br />3. That such variance to terminate upon subdivision o.r additional <br />building or construction on the property; <br />~'~. That certified excepts of the minutes be recorded with the <br />property. <br />Wickland indicated that he could not support this motion in,-the <br />present form. <br />Partyka suggested that the motion may be more acceptable if some <br />form ofamortization were included in the recommendation. Partyka <br />further suggested that the Planning Commission .may want to provide. <br />some guidance to the Council on amortization by placing an amortization. <br />.clause on their recommendation. <br />Tr,ickland noted that the key may be to recommend an amortization <br />provision for every sign variance.- This, Trlickland noted, would give <br />the same treatment. to everyone. <br />.Motion by Partyka, seconded by Wickland, to amend-main motion <br />by including the following conditions <br />1. That the sign along. 35Tn7 be made to conform within 5 years, <br />or a time period specified by the Council in any sabsequesnt <br />amortization ordinance. <br />4 ayes,l nay (Anderson) -amendment. carried, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.