Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 14, 1990 <br />allow as a Conditional Use Permit in a Planned Unit <br />Development District the stockpiling and recycling of <br />aggregate materials with CUP to be issued on an annual <br />basis and incorporate the conditions as required by the <br />City Planner. <br />Motion seconded by Herkenhoff. <br />Motion carried 6 - 1. Garske voting against. <br />SIGN The City Planner reported that the Council asked for <br />ORDINANCE a survey of communities to determine how free - standing <br />AMENDMENT signs are regulated when a shopping center has more <br />than one frontage. The Planner submitted to the <br />Commission a diagram showing how the cities surveyed <br />would allow the placement of free - standing shopping <br />center signs. The Planner reviewed this information in <br />detail with the Commission. <br />The Planner reported that based on this information he <br />recommended one free - standing sign per shopping center <br />frontage at a setback of five feet from the curb for <br />the first frontage and a setback of 20 to 40 feet for <br />the second frontage. <br />DeLonais pointed out that the City's ordinance <br />currently allows only one free - standing sign per <br />shopping center. <br />The Planner replied that one free - standing sign is <br />allowed per shopping center as a permitted use with the <br />second being allowed as a conditional use.. However, <br />the ordinance provides no criteria for the conditional <br />use. Also, the City's ordinance identifies the second <br />frontage as access and not based on architectural <br />orientation of a building. <br />Drabik asked if the five foot setback is one reason <br />Rice Street looks so cluttered. <br />The Planner did not believe so, stating that a lot of <br />communities have the five foot setback. The Planner <br />stated that if the setback is too great, the signs will <br />be difficult for motorists to locate. <br />DeLonais questioned why the City's existing Sign <br />Ordinance needed to be amended. <br />The Planner pointed out that the existing ordinance has <br />a loophole in that there is no criteria established for <br />either allowing or denying a second free - standing sign. <br />Pace 2f1 <br />