My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-11-01 P & Z
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2005
>
2005-11-01 P & Z
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 2:38:10 PM
Creation date
1/17/2006 3:46:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 & Zoning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 1, 2005 <br />Motion by Commissioner Kennert-Hunt, seconded by Commissioner Pangell, to <br />direct staff to schedule a public hearing on December 6, 2005 for the Ordinance <br />Codification 153, 154, and 155. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br />V. NEW BUSINESS <br />1. Ordinance #6 – Nuisance, #6A – A Nuisance Abatement & #39 – Signage – <br />(Residential Lawn Signs) <br />City Administrator Larson stated that this is primarily in response to some Halloween <br />displays on private property. <br />Commissioner Hanzal asked where the enforcement of this issue begins and ends. He <br />went on to say the Commission must carefully define a nuisance and decide how to <br />enforce these ordinances. <br />The Commission discussed how morals and intent could be determined, and how the <br />ordinance would be enforced. <br />Chair Hanson suggested the dictionary definition of obscene could be a place to start for <br />the wording of the ordinance. <br />Commissioner Wright suggested that the ordinance include the use of phonetic <br />vulgarities. <br />Commission consensus was to direct staff to check the ordinances of other cities and <br />otherwise further investigate the ability of the City to regulate displays on private <br />property. <br />2. Bridges / Use of Easements (Proposed Ordinance #4 Amendment, Guidelines & <br />Encroachment Agreement) <br />City Administrator Larson stated that the primary issue with the ordinance is the <br />prohibition of any structures in the easement. He suggested that an amendment could be <br />added to allow structures with City approval. <br />Commissioner Love asked how the bridges would be considered a deck. Mr. Larson said <br />the bridges would be considered a deck for the purpose of the building permit. <br />Commissioner Pangell asked if there were many requests for encroachments upon <br />easements. Mr. Larson answered the City Council has not looked favorably on such <br />requests historically, therefore requests have decreased. <br />Commissioner Hanzal suggested that each bridge be required to have handrails. <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.