My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-25-1984 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
01-25-1984 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 10:48:30 AM
Creation date
6/26/2013 10:46:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: File <br />FROM: Stephen Grittman <br />DATE: 20 October 1983 <br />RE: Little Canada - Sign Ordinance <br />FILE NO: 758.09 <br />The Chamber of Commerce has had a committee for the purpose of making recom- <br />mendations to the City of Little Canada regarding its Sign Ordinance. On <br />Wednesday, 19 October 1983, the committee net with Mugs Nardini and Mike <br />Fahey, Little Canada Council members, and myself to present their findings <br />and recommendations. A list of the committee's recommendations is attached <br />to this memo and a summary of the discussion follows: <br />I. A clarification should be made to allow the placement of a directional <br />sign on anothe?s property which would include name and address of a <br />business only. At present, the code enforcement officer considers <br />these signs advertising signs and as such are not allowed on any <br />property but that of the business. It should also be made clear <br />that these signs are included in the total signage allowed at the <br />parcel on which they are actually located. <br />II. Window Signs. The amendment as it exists (Ordinance No. 207 - 903.110.C) <br />seems to be what is wanted, but some clarification would help. This <br />topic consumed a major portion of the meeting and the eventual conclusions <br />were approximately what the existing amendment states. Fahey suggested <br />that what would help here and in other places in the ordinance would <br />be some sort of example. <br />If there are any actual objections to the amendment as it stands, <br />they may be to the 120 square foot maximum stated in Subsection 10.a., <br />but this was never brought out specifically. <br />III. Holiday Signs. This section requires a definition. The suggestion is <br />to define a holiday sign as one in which a holiday greeting is displayed <br />with absolutely no reference to merchant identification, product or <br />service. These greeting only signs shall be unrestricted as to duration <br />of display, as long as they are window or wall signs, holiday pennant <br />or banners. If a holiday greeting type sign is displayed as a temporary <br />or portable sign, it will be counted against their allowable temporary <br />sign time as described in the temporary sign section following. <br />4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55116 612/925 -9420 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.