My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2014 04 10
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2014 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2014 04 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:21 AM
Creation date
7/30/2014 3:23:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2014 04 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 />April; 10, 2014 <br />Page 9of 37 <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff recommends approval of the PUD allowing these three signs with theone <br />condition as mentioned. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Rice says he understands that normally this building would be allowed one monument <br />sign. <br />Robinson says that is the basic standard in the IDDSG forone monument sign per <br />project. <br />Rice says thatone vehicle to get more signs is to make it into a PUD. <br />Robinson says generally all commercial developments are governed by a PUD. This <br />was actually built before that requirement came in so that is the only reason it doesn’t <br />have a PUD. If this buildingwere being built today, it would be required to have a PUD. <br />Rice says that when it gets into the PUD process, then the sign standards change. <br />Robinson says they are allowed to be modified by the Planning Commission and City <br />Council through the PUD process. <br />Rice asks about the first monument sign, thenif we were back to just one sign, itwould <br />be within all the code requirements. <br />Robinson says that if they were just requesting this one sign, they would not be here <br />tonight. <br />Rice asks that we are moving toward the PUD process because of the second <br />directional sign and the third sign in lieu of a wall sign. If we took that same sign and put <br />it on the wall of the building, would it comply with all the standards in terms of size, <br />lettering, and all? <br />Robinsonsays yes. <br />Rice asks thenthe only different thing here is that they have bumped it out a few feet. <br />Robinson says yes. <br />Rice says his question is,are there comparables here where we done this before where <br />people have moved into a PUD process inorderto gain additional signs? <br />Robinson says yes, we have done PUB amendments before when applicants have <br />come in requesting more signs than they were initially allowed or when new buildings <br />come in. Sometimes applicants will ask for more signs than are allowed regularly under <br />the standards.As they are building the project, they are allowed more signs. <br />Rice says then there is precedence for doing it that way. He asks because he is new to <br />the Commission so he is trying to catch up with some of the history. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.