HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES APRIL 12, 1995'~
DATE: (041295)
Planning & Zoning Work Meeting
4/12/95
7:00 P. M.
•
Those Present: Chairman:
Members:
Councilman:
Attorney:
City Clerk:
Engineer:
John Millar
Davawn Beattie
Jim Long
Ted Whyte
Marsha Bjornn
Mary Ann Mounts
Bruce Sutherland
J. D. Hancock
Rose Bagley
Joe Laird
RE: SIDEWALK AT HOMES OWNED BY MIKE THUESON AT 128 & 138 N. 5TH W.
TOPIC: (300,179,,,SIDEWALKS,5TH WEST,THUESON*MIKE)
Discussion on the sidewalk at the homes owned by Mike Thueson at 128
and 138 North 5th West. The ordinance now states the sidewalk has to be
5 feet back from the curb. Mr Thueson claims that the sidewalk down
the street is next to the curb and that Madison Park Apartments just
down from him would not be able to put their sidewalk back 5 feet
because of the berm on their property along the road. John stated that
he thinks that North 5th West is in dire need of sidewalks. There are a
lot of kids walking to school down the road and another subdivision is
coming in and with the Stake Center it would be a mistake to say they
did not need sidewalks. Jim felt that the pattern was established in
that area with the sidewalks being back 5 feet. Davawn felt the
sidewalk should be back, because when the snow is plowed it would go on
the sidewalk if the sidewalk is next to the curb. (discussion) The
P&Z recommended that he set the sidewalk back 5 feet from the curb.
There has been a request to put a business in P.O.D.'s. It is zoned
H.B.D. and wanted to put one or two apartments in, which H.B.D. doesn't
allow for apartments. (discussion) It was suggested that they apply
for a Conditional Use Permit.
RE: SIGN ORDINANCE
TOPIC; {300,179,,,SIGN ORDINANCE,SIGNS)
John stated he would like to start with what do we want to control and
why and keep it as minimal as possible. Bruce stated that the city
council's concern is over regulation. He did not think there was
anything wrong with the Uniform Sign Code. Davawn stated he didn't
know how we could abbreviate the-sign code. A concern is the Uniform
Sign Code does not have the height, size and fees. Joe stated that the
section that allows over hanging signs needs to be eliminated. John
said we voted at a previous meeting to-not allow over hanging signs.
J.D. told them we also agreed that the sign height should be a maximum
of 24 feet from ground level to top of the sign.
1 ~! v
J.D. complained about the signs springing up at college housing around
the campus. A sign was just put up down the street from him for the
Castle Apartments that looks bad and he is upset about it and so are
his neighbors.
At one time Mary Ann proposed that the maximum of 8 square feet only be
allowed in a residential zone. John suggested that we say 8 or 10
square feet of sign be allowed without a variance.
Davawn gave a handout on signs. We need to establish the size and
fees. John stated that he had a concern with 24 foot height in some
locations. The Comfort Inn needs a 60 foot sign because you will pull
people off U.S. 20. Out by his office Forsgren, you won't pull someone
off U.S. 20 with a 60 foot sign or even 100 feet. The only reason the
Mc Donalds sign is seen is because of the arch that everyone knows.
(discussion)
A motion was made by Davawn Beattie to recommend to set the penalty
that they be in compliance within 14 days with a $50 a day penalty for
each day there after for each day in violation. To set the fees at a
$50 minimum with a sliding fee as set by the U.B.C. If they are in the
city right-a-way or pose a safety hazard, the city can remove the sign
at the owners expense. Seconded by Jim Long. A11 Aye.
The height is 24 feet ground to the top of the sign. The committee
went through a chart to determine the size. (copy 'on file)
A motion was made by Jim Long to adopt the U.S.C. and add to it chart..
and appendix as discussed. All Aye
Meeting adjourned.