My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-2005 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
01-26-2005 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2012 9:44:23 AM
Creation date
4/13/2012 9:41:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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 />JANUARY 22, 2003 <br />Ricic Boss, representing both LCRA and Tierney's., indicated that <br />temporary signs are very important to the L.CRA in promoting their fund - <br />raising activities. IIe noted that the money raised is put back into the <br />community. From Tierney's perspective, banners are an important part of <br />their advertising and they have been using monthly banners for many <br />years. <br />Nicholson pointed out that businesses spend a lot of money on their <br />signage, and he felt temporary siana <ge should be allowed as long as it is <br />clone in a tasteful way. Fahey pointed out that the City cannot dictate <br />taste, but can regulate number of signs and size. Fahey noted that some <br />businesses put up temporary signs and they never come down. <br />Fahey stated that he was not in favor of any part of staffs proposal that is <br />more restrictive than the current ordinance, He also felt that business <br />should be allowed the same number of temporary signs regardless of <br />whether they are located in a strip mall or not. Blesener indicated that he <br />did not feel limiting the display of temporary signs to ten clays was a long <br />enough duration. <br />Montour asked what is considered to be a temporary sign. The City <br />Administrator reviewed the listing of temporary signs included in the <br />ordinance. He further noted that over 33% of window coverage with signs <br />is considered to be temporary signage. The City has not enforced this <br />provision of the ordinance. <br />LaValle felt that banners should be dealt with separately from the rest of <br />the temporary signs, LaValle also expressed concern with allowing <br />businesses in strip malls the same number of temporary, portable signs as <br />single- occupant properties. LaValle envisioned a strip mall having <br />numerous portable temporary signs on display at one time. <br />Fahey felt that the portable temporary signs were more offensive than <br />banners. Blesener agreed. He also pointed out that businesses are <br />spending a lot of money for the creation of a banner, therefore, will want <br />to display it for more than ten days. <br />Anderson sug..gested that the ordinance distinguish portable temporary <br />signs from banners in some way. The City Administrator pointed out that <br />there are also balloons, pennants, etc. which must be addressed. <br />The City Administrator reviewed pictures of temporary signage at several <br />businesses in the City, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.