CC 01-13-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4, Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, January 13 Page two REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORL YN MILLER Case No. 86-1, Institutional Identification SiRn and HeiRht Variance - PilRrim House Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Council was referred to Planning memo (12/26/85), Board of Appeals Report (1/11/86) and Planning Commission recommendations (minutes of 1/6/86). Miller explained that institutional signs in residential districts require Council approval; noted that the sign proposed is 35 S.F. (50 S.F. maximum permitted); noted that this applicant wants the sign 18" above ground; conse- quently, an 18" height variance is needed. (5' height maximum permitted by Ordinance). Miller reported that the Planning Commission took no action on the sign 4It height variance; noted that the Commission was concerned about the sign setback and the possible adverse effect of the lighting on the house to .the west of the Pilgrim House site. Miller reported that the Planning Commis- sion recommends denial of the sign proposal because of insufficient informa- tion. Applicant Ron Hitzemann explained that they prefer the 18" below the sign so it will not be obscured by snow; reported that he measured the road right- of-way from the center to determine their property line; stated that the right-of-way is 180'; 90' from' centerline puts the sign, as proposed, within the 10' required setback (about 4' from property line). Hitzemann said the lighting proposed for the sign is low voltage (12 volt system); noted that there are no windows on the east. side of the adjacent house; consequently, feels there will be no problem with adverse impact of the light on this home. It was noted that there is a stand of evergreen trees between the proposed sign location and this house which will reduce any light impact from the sign. Hitzemann said the sign appears to be at almost the same setback as the Village Hall sign; explained that the lights will be on an adjustable timer- on at dusk and off at about 10:00 p.m. In discussion, it was asked if the sign height can be reduced. Applicant said the sign is made; in order to reduce the height, the posts would have to be lowered deeper intp the ground; posts have been installed at desired sign height. One of the redwood sign boards, with yellow lettering, was shown to Council. It was noted that the boards will slip into grooves in the 4 x 4 posts. Miller explained that the Sign Ordinance Committee did not consider signs on highways when developing recommended setbacks and sign sizes; noted that considering the size of the site, and the speed of traffic on STH 96, the proposed sign is not large; also noted that the setback is not unrea- sonable, considering the very wide right-of-way. Miller noted that all the same things are involved here as there were with the North Heights Lutheran Church sign on Highway 96; reported he does not foresee a serious light problem with the proposed sign lighting. Miller noted that the Board of Appeals recommends denial of the variance based on the finding of "No Hard- ship". The applicant was asked if he has discussed the proposed sign with the neighbors to the west. Hitzemann said he. had not. Hansen moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve the sign as proposed ~ contingent upon receipt of a letter from the neighbor to the west, approving the sign. Hicks moved to amend the motion to add the contingency that the actual set- back be identified. Motion was seconded by Hansen. Motion on the amendment carried unanimously. (5-0) Original motion carried unanimously. (5-0) (Planner Miller to determine actual sign setback for the record.)