My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-24-89 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
05-24-89 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:52:01 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:52:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Minutes <br />City Council <br />h9ay 7a, 19II9 <br />Text <br />Amendment <br />Sign~ <br />(cont.) <br />PYr. Grittrnan agreed saying that it was not their intention <br />to change the square footage requirement, just to allow <br />taller signs> <br />Mr. Blesener stated that he felt it does not address wkaat <br />the City expected it to with regard to the Fina sign. <br />P1r. Fakaey ayreed that it did not preclude the square <br />footage. P2r. Blesener felt tkiat a section should be added <br />cahich reads "on parcels which serve a common property line <br />with limited access fireeways, the maximum sign height shall <br />be 30 feet regardless of building size", <br />P•irs. Sc~lze asked i~ ~hey want to malce it so with the <br />additional setback you can go up to 35 feet. <br />h1r. Grittman said that the 30 Eeet under the new ordinance <br />is an addi~ional five feet over any maximum sign t,~ith no <br />extra setback ancl i.~ is the intent to say ~hat ~he <br />additional setback is the desirable characteristic and that <br />the buildings that are 2,500 square feet in size should be <br />able to take advantage of the additional setbac)c provision. <br />[Zr. Grittman gave the exarnple of ~he ['ina Station adjacent <br />to the freeu~ay. It could have a szgn that is 30 feet. <br />49r. Grittman said that the reason for the setback provision <br />is because oi a 2,500 square foot building right next door <br />to Fina could also have a 30 foot sign if they set it bacic <br />far enough. The setbacic provision should be consistent in <br />the regulations. <br />Mr. ~3lesener stated that he reads the ordinance as saying <br />that you can go to 30 Leet or you can go to 35 reet, but you <br />will have to have ~he sc~uare footage to ge~ there, <br />P7r, Fahey suggested making the additional o~ords aiter the <br />Eirst two sentences "regardless oi building size". <br />I~1rs, Scalze asked if anyone on the staf:C de~ermined ii 600 <br />is going to be a problem. ~~r. F3lesener indicated that ~ehen <br />you go 600 feet from the center of the road, you really are <br />not going tkiat far, <br />P~lr. Grittman stated that you really are e~tending probably <br />400 to 500 feet frorn the center of the Ereeway, dependiny <br />upon the freecaay wi~h the interchange. ATr. Grittman <br />indicated that tkiey looY.ed at tY~at by taiciny out section <br />maps and checleed each intersection area and they did noL <br />extend beyond a one block lengtki in any intersection. <br />Page -5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.