Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 26, 2003 <br />Fahey noted that the Council just received the diagrams this evening, and <br />it was the consensus of the Council to table action on this matter so that <br />they had time to review the information and to allow the City Planner to <br />review the diagrams and comment. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOL UTION NO. 2003-2-42 -TABLING ACTION ON THE PUD <br />PERMIT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN <br />UNTIL THE MARCH 12, 2003 MEETING PENDING A REPORT <br />FROM THE CITY PLANNER AND CITYADMINIS'TRATOR <br />REI ATIVE TO THE PI AN <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (5) Fahey, LaValle, Montour, Blesener, Anderson. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />AMENDMENT Mayor Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the proposed <br />TO ZONING amendment to the Zoning Code relative to temporary signs. It was noted <br />CODE - that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the <br />TEMPORARY amendment as proposed. Fahey further noted that information relative to <br />SIGNS temporary outdoor sales events will be presented by staff at a later date. <br />There was no one present from the genera] public wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Montour, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Blesener noted the provision for multi-tenant buildings limiting temporary <br />signs to no more than two tenants at a time. Blesener suggested that this <br />provision limit to "no more than two tenants or 50% of the tenants at one <br />time" in order to address multi-tenant buildings having only two tenants. <br />Anderson questioned the deletion of the language relative to spotlights. <br />The consensus was to retain the five-day limitation for spotlights as stated <br />in the ordinance. <br />Anderson questioned the wording relating to temporary signage for non- <br />profit organizations and the way the 14-day period is measured. The <br />Council agreed that the 14-day period should be measured backward from <br />the date of the event, but agreed that the wording could be made clearer. <br />