01-13-05 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~IIN (:TES crr~ cor ~lcr>, J.1N[;ARY 22. ?003 ~Eahe}~° felt it w-as tha temporai~% portable signs that ~~ere most problelvatic. Fahev asked if other cities distinguished between portable suns and banners. I-Ie noted from the sur~~ey done by staffthat it appears the City of 1~'[aplewood does not re<xulate nor require a permit for banners. Fahey suggested that banners that are physically attached to the building be allowed. Anderson agreed. Layral(e suggested broadening that to allow banners to be attached to existing signs. Fahey agreed; but suggested that onl}% one banner per business be allowed. Anderson asked about one banner per building or one banner per tenant. Anderson stated that he would not be opposed to allowing one banner per tenant. Fahey agreed. He felt this would create signage options for businesses, while decreasing enforcement issues for City stafT~. Montour pointed ouC the Cit}%'s redevelopment efforts on Rice Street, and expressed concern with the impact that liberalizing the temporary sign ordinance will have. Fahey suggested Chat there is an inequity in file temporary sip>n ordinance as relates Co businesses located within a strip mall He felt that if the City changes the ordinance and there is a problem with the cumber of portable signs, the City could tape another look at the ordinance. He also noted that other cities have made a distinction between temporary portable signs and banners. Fahey asked if there was consensus on the issue of allowing banners as a permitted signs, not more than one banner per business, regulating the size ofbamlers in some fashion, and restricting the banner to the building or to the pylon sign. Anderson, LaValle, and Bleseuer agreed. Cossack asked for clarification on the banner location. The consensus was that the banner would have to be on the building or on the pylon sign. The banner could not be strwig from the pylon sign to the building or to another post. Fahey indicated that City staff would come back with a specific recommendation based on the CounciPs consensus. Size was discussed and Cossack and Nicholson felt that a 10-foot by 4-toot or a 10- foot by 3-toot banner size would be acceptable. iiie ~~., iiV .~iiiliiiilSiratur aisG iivicd iiiai teiiip Graiy Sigi1S CanilOt i7i; l>lit iii the right-ot=way. Fahey felt this restriction was necessary Prom a safety standpoint. Fahey su<~gested that a bawler be allowed on either the building or on the p}%lon. ~~ry banner not attached in this manner should be considered a temporary sign. ~I'ontour stated that rather than allowing banners as permitted signs, Ile would rather see the ordinance change to inerense the size of reader boards.