My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2013 12 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2013 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2013 12 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:21 AM
Creation date
7/30/2014 3:16:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2013 12 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 12, 2013 <br />Page 6of 9 <br />McCartney stated the McCaslin sign is 60 SF in area but he was unsure as to the area <br />for the sign located on Century. He added the sign on Century is no taller than 30 <br />inches because it is located in the median in the access road. <br />Pritchard asked what the radius is for public notification. <br />McCartney stated it is 500 feet. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Martha McNamara, Precision Signs, spoke on behalf of the owner. She stated the <br />intent of the new sign is to clean up the signage that has been posted on McCaslin. <br />She statedthis sign is purely designed as a directional sign and is non-illuminated. She <br />then gave some details on other signs on the property. <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Tengler asked why there are only 4 panels on this sign. <br />McNamara stated there are only 4 businesses that are hidden. <br />Public Comment: <br />George McKee, 946 Cypress Lane, read from a letter he had sent to Planning staff prior <br />to the meeting. He stated he is speaking on behalf of himself and notthe adjacent <br />homeowner’s association. He added he did not believe the proposed design complies <br />with the existing signs. He then gave suggestions on how to improve the existing signs, <br />such as making them perpendicular to McCaslin and removing the existing wall signs. <br />He believes the existing wall signs are a detriment to their adjacent neighborhood.He <br />does not support this proposal. <br />O’Connell inquired what the criterionis for amending a PUD. <br />McCartney stated it was to improve the property. <br />Russ stated there are clear standards similar to an SRU. <br />O’Connell asked if there was a buffer between this development and the Cherrywood <br />Subdivision. <br />McCartney stated there were trees in between. <br />Tengler asked if there was a 6 foot privacy fence. <br />Russ stated there was a 6 foot wooden fence. <br />O’Connell stated the distance between the development and Cherrywood is the entire <br />width of McCaslin. <br />McCartney answered in the affirmative. <br />Moline stated the sign appears to be too close to the sidewalk. <br />McCartney stated the required setback is 10 feet. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.