01-26-2005 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 22, 2003 Fahey Pelt it was the temporary portable signs that were most problematic. Fahey asked if other cities distinguished between portable signs and banners. He noted from the survey done by staff that it appears the City of Maplewood does not regulate nor require a permit for banners. Fahey suggested that banners that are physically attached to the building be allowed. Anderson agreed. LaValle suggested broadening that to allow banners to be attached to existing signs. Fahey agreed, but suggested that only 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 stall. Montour pointed out the City's redevelopment efforts on Rice Street, and expressed concern with the impact that liberalizing the temporary sign ordinance will have. Fahey suggested that there is an inequity in the temporary sign ordinance as relates to businesses located within a strip mall. He felt that if the City changes the ordinance and there is a problem with the number of portable signs, the City could take 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 of banners in some fashion, and restricting the banner to the building or to the pylon sign. Anderson, LaValle, and Blesener 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 strung 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 Council's consensus. Size was discussed and Cossack and Nicholson felt that a 10 -foot by 4 -foot or a 10- toot by 3 -foot banner size would be acceptable. 'The City Administrator also noted that temporary slgnS cannot be put in the right -of -way_ Fahey felt this restriction was necessary from a safety standpoint. Fahey suggested that a banner be allowed on either the building or on the pylon. Any banner not attached in this manner should be considered a temporary sign. Alontour Mated that rather than allowing banners as permitted signs he would rather see the ordinance change to increase the size of reader boards.