My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/10/2005 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2005
>
08/10/2005 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2014 2:20:33 PM
Creation date
6/19/2014 11:47:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
08/10/2005
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.
/
86
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 13, 2005 <br />Page 4 <br />Chair Rafferty stated he liked the idea that the construction sites had a larger sign, but <br />was concerned about more than one sign on a site. He asked if only one sign would be <br />allowed. Mr. Smyser replied as being proposed one sign would be allowed per street <br />front. <br />Mr. Laden asked if internal streets in a project counted. Mr. Smyser noted that was a <br />good point and he would look into that. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if they should regulate signage on construction trailers put on a <br />construction site. Mr. Smyser replied they could add text that names and numbers of <br />subcontractors with signs on their trailers would not be included into the Ordinance as <br />signage. <br />Mr. Laden stated he was concerned that construction signs were appearing to be given <br />preferential treatment. He asked how they could be more inclusive, instead of exclusive. <br />Mr. Smyser responded they could use the same the same requirements as portable signs <br />or other temporary signage. <br />Mr. Nelson noted a construction sign by its nature is temporary. Mr. Hyden agreed that <br />construction sites were different. <br />Mr. Pogalz noted there were several different types of construction sites, where at some <br />point a construction sign would go away and be replaced by a monument sign. <br />Chair Rafferty stated he would like to see one construction sign per street also. <br />Mr. Laden asked why construction signs did not need a permit. Mr. Smyser noted no <br />Cities that he researched required a permit for a construction sign and he did not believe <br />this has ever been an issue in the past. <br />Mr. Laden asked if they discussed as a Board the timeline for the construction signs. He <br />questioned whether construction signs in residential subdivisions should be allowed, <br />especially until 75 percent of the lots were sold. Mr. Smyser responded a lot of times the <br />construction and real estate signs were together. <br />Chair Rafferty stated he liked the Ordinance the way it was written and the amount of <br />money being invested for a project site, the 30 -day after the Certificate of Occupancy was <br />a fair deal. <br />Mr. Laden stated he did not believe construction signs should not be allowed in <br />residential subdivisions until 75 percent of the lots were sold. He stated sometimes it <br />took years before 75 percent of a development was sold. <br />Mr. Smyser asked at what point the construction company would be told they had to <br />remove their signs. Mr. Laden replied he would put a time certain on sign removal, such <br />as six months, 12 months, etc. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.