1999-06-01 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Mayo, 1999 The Commission explained the neighboring property owner was granted a variance due to the that dime was no gaiage mrsite. Also otherpcupmtyowners enjoyrights that are not shared by the neighboring property. The Commission discussed: Ordinance #4 Section: 65.03 -1 Special and circumstauc,es exist - which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and do not result from the actions the petitioner. The Commission discussed: * Possible safety hazards '- Dilapidated buildings may be - based recently adopted code. Ms Linda - Broussard Vickers expressed - cumuli, about non conforming issues and.the tabling of similar types of items. Ms. Broussard Vickers suggested to table until after Ordinance 44 is Motion Vickers, setouded by LaMotte to table this request until the Commission completes the research on Ordinance #4. Motion carried unanimously. CentenniafScbootDistrict Variants regire fur Sign The Commission discussed, in great depth, any way to grant the variance in conjunction with Ordinance-#4, Section: 65.03 -1 65.03 -2 65.03 -3 65 -.03 -4 Mr. Palzersuggested whenthe Couunissiuli iewiitesOrdinance #4: Signs, that perhaps the provision should be considered for properties contiguous to County Roads. The-Commission suggested- Staff nieasure theright-ofway and easement distaui,e: The Commission felt safer having the sign installed closer to Main Street. Furthermore, the sign ordinance will need to be -in ordertcrconside, pending concerns. Motion by Linda Broussard Vickers, seconded by Brain Ranson to table the Centennial School District's variance request install a based on fact it does not conform to the variance standards, and to update the sign ordinance in an attempt to re- address - the request in the future. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 4