Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />3/27/90 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />----------------------- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Commissioner Schroeder stated that there were two large parcels of <br />property in the City that were put in a one year moratorium because of <br />piece meal development. This is not just a concern of the petitioners' <br />property but has happened a lot in the City. The City would like to <br />stop this piece meal development from happening by developing an <br />overall plan for the area. <br /> <br />It was the general consensus of the Commission that this was not a <br />negative vote against commercial, but rather a concern for the <br />development needs of this property to be addressed up front. <br /> <br />A short recess was taken at this time. <br /> <br />9. Si~na~e ReQuests in Barrin~ton Place PUD/by Linda Norha <br /> <br />Gary Santwire spoke on behalf of Linda Norha. Mr. Santwire indicated <br />he is requesting that the Planning Commission review three pylon signs <br />to be erected in three separate locations: 592 Dodge Avenue, 710 Dodge <br />Avenue, and 564 Dodge Avenue. Mr. Santwire withdrew the part of his <br />request regarding the review of signage in general in Barrington Place <br />PUD. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, indicated that the <br />three signs proposed would each be approximately the same size (8' x 8' <br />and 20 feet high) and would have double pylons holding them up. Staff <br />pointed out the location of the three signs. <br /> <br />Staff's major concern was with being able to see underneath the signs, <br />although the 12 ft. of clearance alleviates most of their concerns. <br />Staff was still concerned with having two pylons, which could impair <br />the vision of traffic. Mr. Santwire indicated he would like to leave <br />the safety factor strictly to staff's discretion. At the time the signs <br />are constructed, they could be looked at on site. If staff is convinced <br />that there is a vision problem with the two pylons, Mr. Santwire would <br />agree to use only one. If staff finds that there isn't a problem, he <br />would like the option to use two pylons. Mr. Santwire indicated that <br />the cost factor is much more for a single pylon sign. <br /> <br />Chairman Kimball indicated that Mr. Santwire should have a sign made <br />that will fit on two pylons. If the sign is not approved by the City, <br />it should be reduced to one pylon. <br /> <br />Discussion on the signage took place regarding copy and color. Staff <br />indicated that if the signage was a vision problem it would have to be <br />removed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson questioned if it was advisable to allow the <br />signage at all if it was causing this much concern, and since we do not <br />have any concrete answers for safety. Mr. Santwire indicated that he <br />felt there wasn't any evidence that they do have safety problems. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Steve Rohlf suggested a compromise for the current situation would be <br />to put up a dummy sign. Then staff could review to see if the concerns <br />were legitimate. The dummy sign would have approximately the same size <br />