My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 09-27-1993
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
CCP 09-27-1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:09:33 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 3:05:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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 /> Planning commission Meeting Minutes - 9/01/93 5 <br /> . <br /> Erickson felt the need from the applicant is strictly <br /> identification and wondered if the phone number was removed, what <br /> classification would it fall under. Fritsinger stated then it <br /> would be an Area Identification sign, but under the current <br /> ordinance they are only allowed one, which is currently in the <br /> front entrance of the complex off of Pinetree Drive. <br /> Chair Winiecki suggested that a lighted directional sign with an <br /> arrow at the entrance would be more useful to identify the <br /> building. <br /> Mr. Bailey stated that they tried to match the sign with the <br /> building making it non-offensive and feels that a lighted <br /> directional sign on the corner would be more offensive. If the <br /> commission would rather a sign at the corner, he will do that. <br /> He just wanted to request special consideration as the sign is as <br /> big as it is because they wanted to make it fit with the <br /> building. <br /> Erickson stated that two informational signs are allowed per site <br /> and a variance would be needed if they wanted a bigger sign that <br /> would fall under the Informational Sign ordinance. He then asked <br /> . if the sign in the entrance stated phone number, etc. Fritsinger <br /> and the applicant confirmed that it did and it falls under Area <br /> Identification classification. Fritsinger stated that an <br /> informational sign would typically be the ones we see at a Burger <br /> King that informs people where to go. If the applicant chose to <br /> put the sign by the entrances that informs people where to go, it <br /> would be allowed under the ordinance and not be considered <br /> temporary. <br /> Marty Rye asked if the sign was meant to direct deliveries to the <br /> underground parking. Applicant stated that it is strictly for <br /> advertising purposes to identify the complex and no deliveries <br /> are made there. <br /> Mr. Bailey expressed one more time that he simply was asking for <br /> special consideration because he felt apartment complex living <br /> was not taken into consideration when the ordinance was adopted. <br /> Piotrowski stated that in her opinion, the objection seems to be <br /> the stark white lettering and she believes gold lettering would" <br /> be much better looking above the garage without the phone number <br /> as an informational sign. Dave Carlson said it would be very <br /> useful at the corner of the entrance. Chair Winiecki stated that <br /> they are allowed a Directional Sign and that a sign at the corner <br /> with an arrow would be useful for directing people to the <br /> entrance. <br /> . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.