Laserfiche WebLink
8. The subject property is in the Commercial District and is adjacent to <br /> `... Highway 371. There is similar signage throughout the highway corridor. <br /> 9. The signage will be used to identify the gas station as well as the price of <br /> gasoline. There will not be any negative aesthetic impacts from the proposed <br /> signage. <br /> 10. The additional signage is appropriate within the Commercial District. A <br /> conditional use permit is required since the applicant is requesting signage on an <br /> accessory structure, which is not allowed by the Code. <br /> 11. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this request but allows for <br /> the use of commercial development within the City. <br /> 12. The use of the signs would be compatible with the existing neighborhood in that <br /> there are other similar signs within the same district. <br /> 13. The proposed use will not impair values nor substantially diminish properties in <br /> the immediate vicinity. <br /> 14. The proposed signs will not impede the normal and orderly development and <br /> improvement of surrounding vacant properties. <br /> 15. The proposed signage will not create a cost for additional public facilities or <br /> services. <br /> 16. The subject property is already established with vehicular approaches to the <br /> property. The proposed signs will face both the highway and the existing <br /> supermarket. <br /> 17. There is no need for additional parking with the request of a sign. <br /> 18. The requested signage will not create any odor, fumes, dust, noise or vibration. <br /> The signs will be internally lit, however it is unknown whether or not they will be <br /> turned off after business hours. <br /> 19. The proposed use will not cause any pollution to ground or surface waters. <br /> Mr. Hallan stated the lighting will need to be downward directional, no glare and turned <br /> off after business hours. <br /> All members voted"aye". Motion carried. <br /> CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: <br /> Mr. Marohn explained by moving our meeting date back a week we will not be able to <br /> have any recommendations included on the May City Council Agenda. We can approve <br /> the Comprehensive Plan, but it won't go to Council until June. He recommends tabling <br /> this to the May meeting and taking discussion and comments tonight, as well as sending <br /> the draft version to the City Council advising them of the public hearing in May. It was <br /> the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave this open for more public comment. <br /> A motion was made by Mark Hallan, seconded by Deb Brown,to table this matter to the <br /> May Planning Commission meeting. All members voted"aye". Motion carried. <br /> The Planning Commission was asked to bring back their April packet for the May <br /> meeting so the Comprehensive Plan won't need to be printed again. <br /> MINUTES 3 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> April 28, 2011 <br />