My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-15-1986 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
09-15-1986 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2022 12:18:11 PM
Creation date
10/20/2022 12:14:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD S TEMBER 15, 1986 <br />#1073 DEANOVIC CONTINUED <br />Bellows noted that the proposed berming area is 501 from <br />the lakeshore and clearly meets a structural setback, <br />therefore should not be considered a berm. <br />No one was present from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Taylor, to <br />recommend approval per staff recommendation. Motion, <br />Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />#1074 GRACE RAP TIST CHURCH <br />2830 SRADYWOOD ROAD <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING 9:34-9:48 <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing <br />was noted. <br />Representative Lowell Zitz lof t was present for this <br />matter. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the sign clearly <br />meets the required setback of 30' from the intersection. <br />The issue is the proposed height of a 22' sign where <br />normally a maximum 8' height is allowed in a residential <br />area . <br />Mr. Zitz lof f stated that he contacted other communities <br />and found that the ci oss portion of the sign would not <br />be included in height (therefore making the sign <br />approximately 10' in height excluding the cross area). <br />He noted that they needed adequate space for a readable <br />message and Lc:hedule of services including the Church <br />name. <br />Bellows noted that there was a great deal. of visual <br />clutter in the area already. <br />Hanson stated that this was an <br />the church being located in a <br />great sign restrictions and he <br />the variance. <br />unusual situation with <br />residential area with <br />is in favor of granting <br />Goetten stated that she felt the proposed sign was so <br />much larger than what she has seen at other neighboring <br />churches. <br />McDonald stated that she felt there was no problem <br />reading the existing sign and such approval would be <br />setting a negative precedent. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.