My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-17-1986 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1986
>
11-17-1986 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2024 10:06:35 AM
Creation date
1/18/2024 10:00:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
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
I <br />p <br />i. <br />MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 15, 1986 <br />#1073 DBANOVIC CONTINUED <br />Bellows noted that the proposed berming area is 50' 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 BAPTIST CHURCH <br />2830 SBADIWOOD 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 Zitzloff 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 />%■ <br />Mr. Zitzloff stated that he contacted other communities <br />and found that the cross 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 schedule 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 unusual situation with <br />the church being located in a residential area with <br />great sign restrictions and he is in favor of granting <br />the variance. <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.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.