Laserfiche WebLink
PIINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />November 10, 1988 <br />Rezoning <br />(Cont.) <br />The Planner noted that he will need the authorization of the City Council <br />to conduct a study. Therefore, it could be December or January before <br />he would have the study completed. <br />This was acceptable to the Commission. <br />The Planner indicated that he would contact various property owners in the <br />area to see of some compromise could be worked out through the upgrading <br />of the I -1 performance standards. <br />Text The City Planner submitted a proposed text amendment to the City's sign <br />Amendment ordinance which does not require non - conforming signs to be brought into <br />Sign conformance unless there is at least 50% improvement to the property. <br />Ordinance Under the present ordinance, non - conforming signs must be brought into <br />conformance if any site improvements are made. <br />DeLonais asked why the Fina sign could not remain at the same height, but <br />put on two posts rather than four. <br />The Planner pointed out that that would constitute a new sign, and a variance <br />would be required. <br />The Planner reported that the City has looked at what other City's are <br />doing, and tried to accommodate the Fina request to construct a new <br />sign at the current height of the existing sign. However, based on what <br />other communities are doing, the result was the text amendment before the <br />Commission. <br />DeLonais asked what would happen if the Connco Shoes site had to be <br />rebuilt. <br />The Planner replied that a variance would be necessary to replace the <br />Connco Shoes sign. However, due to the elevation of the property, there <br />would be criteria present to warrant a variance. <br />Schweizer recommended adoption of the proposed text amendment amending <br />the Little Canada Code Chapter 903.110, Signs. as recommended by the <br />City Planner. <br />Motion seconded by Costa. <br />Motion carried 4 - 0. <br />Organized DeLonais felt that organized garbage collection should be required in <br />Garbage residential areas, but felt that commercial areas should be able to <br />Collection contract for their own garbage collection with whomever they wish. <br />Costa felt that competition was needed in order to keep garbage collection <br />rates down. <br />Page 10 <br />