My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/13/2004 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
10/13/2004 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2014 4:31:07 PM
Creation date
4/7/2014 4:30:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
10/13/2004
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 <br />Page 15 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />commercial or residential property and the Boar d could make the determination if certain <br />signs should be banned fr om certain properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Root asked if there was a reason they could not limit to tal temporary signage to no <br />more than 32 square feet and have a timeline for the sign to be out. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated Mr. Root’s sugges tion was fine, except when it came to <br />construction signs. He stated this issue would come up soon with the development by <br />City Hall. <br /> <br />Mr. Laden asked how long could a sign be up be fore it was considered a permanent sign. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated at a previous meeting a business had indicated they needed the <br />temporary signage for their profitability and he was concerned if the City cut into the <br />profitability of a busines s, a lawsuit could be the result. Mr. Tralle pointed out staff had <br />not been able to verify that these temporary signs cut into the profitability of a business. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty suggested for next month they take three signs out of this packet and <br />discuss those, starting with the constructi on signs, subdivision signs, and subdivision <br />directional development signs. Mr. Laden stated he believed these three types of signs <br />were the same. <br /> <br />Mr. Pogalz stated until it as brought up on this Board, he never paid much attention to the <br />fact that there were so many si gns in the City and he was not sure how to approach this <br />yet. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden stated he wanted to nail down a goal each time so they were moving forward. <br />He stated he did not want to discuss this at every mee ting with no conclusions being <br />reached. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he did not know what was the best dire ction to go, but he would like <br />to get this behind them. He stated he wanted to get to the root of the problem and make <br />this easy to regulate. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden stated he understood what brought this on was the us e of banners in the City <br />and the City was looking for direction on how to enforce us e of banners, but now they <br />needed to look at all temporary signage. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle stated he wanted to tackle the banners and not construction signs because these <br />were already defined. He stated banners and signs on posts were the biggest problems for <br />him. <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated he wanted to pick a sign a nd discuss it and take this in small chunks, but <br />he agreed they should begin with a discussion on banner signs first. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty asked if they could agree to discuss banners at the next meeting. Mr. <br />Bengston suggested the Board members look at the sign definitions over the next month <br />and if they were defined and the members ag reed with the definition, then they did not
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.