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 />The City Planner indicated that temporary rnaa i - vs <br />n por: y si< < e is 11w1. s a problem for <br />communities. The Planner suggested that if the City wants to allow more <br />signs, his recommendation would be to allow more permanent signage. <br />The Planner recommended that all temporary signage be eliminated, and <br />agreed with \Iontour's recommendation for increasing the size of reader <br />boards. The Planner indicated that when a business makes a decision to <br />locate in a city, that decision is not based on the particular city's sign <br />ordinance. It is only after the business has moved in that it approaches the <br />city with signage requests. The Planner stated that he can appreciate the <br />need for signs, but suggested that if more signage is important, then it <br />should be permanent signage. Temporary signage is always an <br />enforcement issue. <br />Anderson pointed out the banners that currently are displayed on some of <br />the City's businesses. Anderson stated that if he were a business owner, <br />he would not have thought a permit was needed to display a banner. <br />Anderson also pointed out the enforcement issue that temporary signs are <br />for the City. Anderson pointed out that the City only has a given amount <br />time and resources the City wants to devote to code enforcement, and <br />suggested that those resources be directed to outdoor storage rattler than <br />banners. <br />Fahey suggested that the amendments discussed be adopted by the <br />Council. Should there be continuing issues that need further attention, the <br />Council can take another look at the matter in the tenure. Council clarified <br />that the issues are: <br />permitting banners, one per business, attached to either the <br />building or a pylon sign (completely attached to the pylon, cannot be <br />attached at one end to the pylon and at the other to some other structure, <br />such as the building or a pole); <br />o no temporary signage in the right -of -way; <br />o temporary signage allowances based on individual <br />businesses regardless of location within multi- tenant <br />buildings; <br />o each business allowed three temporary permits per year, for <br />60 days total: <br />o for multi- tenant buildings. no more than two temporary_ <br />signs on display at any one time: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.