HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1986-12-16BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission
December 16, 1986
Board;
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chairman Al Sager, Commissioners David Barker,
Duane Blair, Mark Brown, Mike Dickinson, George
Hix, Steve Komito
All
Town Attorney White, Town Administrator Hill,
Town Planner Stamey, Town Engineer Widmer,
Building Inspector Allman, Secretary Jones
None
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held November 18,
1986 were submitted and approved.
2• PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal
Code Concerning Sign Regulations, to Permit Displays of
String Lights;
A public hearing was conducted regarding the proposed
amendment of Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code. Copies of
the proposed Amendment were distributed and Planner Stamey
summarized conditions under which displays of string lights
might be permitted as follows:
1. They should be decorative displays which outline
landscaping or architectural features of a building.
2. They should be steady-burning, clear lights with no
blinking, flashing, etc.
3,
4.
They should be no greater in intensity than five watts.
They should not be used to outline signs, sign support,
awnings or canopies.
They should not be assembled or arranged to convey
messages, or commercial advertisements.
They should not create a safety hazard with respect to
placement.
They should be placed only on private property.
They ^ should be maintained and repaired so that no
individual light bulb is inoperative.
Public comment was heard from the following;
Mr. Jay Grooters - Colorado Cottages, 1241 High Drive. He
spoke in favor of having string lighting year round. He said
they had used them at Christmas time with very positive
results. He believes it alerts people to his property, since
they are not located on a major highway.
Commissioner Komito commented that he believes the present
cods is adequate and has worked well over the years. He
is not in favor of the amendment allowing string lights.
7,
8.
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Planning Commission - December 16, 1986 - Page two
Discussion followed regarding whether or not a Sign Permit would
be required when adding string lighting and it was determined
this type of lighting would come under the Exemptions provision
of the sign code.
Chairman Sager commented he felt the majority of the general
public is happy with the existing sign code and amending it to
allow string lighting would be steering away from the sign code's
intent.
Commissioner Brown moved that this proposed amendment be
favorably recommended to the Town Board. Commissioner Dickinson
seconded the motion. Those voting "yes". Commissioners Barker,
Brown, Dickinson. Those voting "No", Commissioners Blair, Hix,
Komito and Sager. The motion failed.
2. REPORTS:
2. a. - Discussion on Building Setback Provisions and
Potential Modifications
Planner Stamey reviewed the setback requirements under the
new zoning regulations. The new regulation requires 25'
building setback from all property lines, except if lot width
or lot depth is less than 125', 20% of the width or depth of
the lot (e.g., side setback on a lot 100 ' wide would be 20',
or 10' on a lot 50' wide. Concensus of the Planning
Commission was that development in the R-M, C-0 and C-H
Districts should maintain a minimum setback of 25* from all
street lines; and, that a 25' setback should be observed when
abutting an E-Estate. District. Otherewise, setback
requirements (side and rear) might be modified to more
closely resemble previous requirements. There was also
discussion on whether setbacks should be increased when a
building exceeds one story.
Planner Stamey suggested possible modifications to Section
17.16.040, subparagraph 6. Alteration, as follows: "A
nonconforming building shall not be structurally altered,
enlarged or extended, unless such alteration, enlargement, or
extension does not increase the extent of nonconformity." or
possibly to read "In the E, R-S and R-M Districts, structural
alterations, enlargements or extensions may be permitted
provided the Building Inspector and Town Planner make a
determination that such alteration, enlargement or extension
does not increase the extent of nonconformity." The second
alternative was preferred by the Planning Commission.
Both Dave Habecker and Dick Hannigan commented about the
hardship they felt the 25' setback requirement would place on
developers.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Carolyn C^nes/J Secretary