Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 25, 1990 <br />SIGN <br />ORDINANCE <br />AMENDMENT <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved <br />its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 90-7-344 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER <br />TO STUDY THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY IN <br />CONNECTION WITA THE SWANSON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AS <br />WELL AS THE BORDER DRAINAGE QUESTIONS OF THE <br />IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AREA, AND INSTRUCTING CITY STAFF <br />TO DETERMINE A DEPOSIT AMOUNT TO BE COLLECTED FROM THE <br />SWANSON DEVELOPERS TO COVER A PERCENTAGE OF THE COST OF <br />THE STUDY <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Collova. <br />Ayes (5),Fahey, Collova, LaValle, Blesener, Scalze. <br />Nays (0). <br />Council reviewed the proposed Sign Ordinance amendment <br />relating to free-standing signs for shopping centers. <br />Blesener asked if under the proposed amendment total <br />signage for a shopping center was limited to 15% of the <br />building silouette. <br />The Planner replied that this was correct. <br />Blesener asked the definition of free-standing building <br />under this Ordinance amendment. <br />The Planner replied that free-standinq building would <br />be defined as a single business occupying a single <br />building. <br />Blesener stated that he felt the amendment cleaned up <br />the Ordinance and provided definite restrictions for <br />second pylons at shopping centers. <br />Scalze stated that she opposed the Ordinance amendment <br />since it was being made to please a developer and felt <br />the Council would not have conscientiously set out to <br />make the amendment on its own. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following Ordinance and moved <br />its adoption: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 334 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION <br />903.110 RELATING TO FREESTANDING SIGNS FOR SHOPPING <br />CENTERS <br />Page 12 <br />