Laserfiche WebLink
il�Iou�ads Vievv Plannin� Cotri�rt�ssion <br />R.egular i�//Iee�i�g <br />.�anuary 17, 2001 <br />Fage 9 <br />Commux�ity Development Director Ericson gave a copy of the November 15, 2��0 draft <br />revision of the Sign Code to the Planning Commission. <br />Commissioner Miller stated there was not a provision concerning caring for the sign <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated care of <br />other parts of the code uncier nuisance or nonconforming sigr <br />signs section covering a sign not being maintained. <br />Commissioner Kaden refened to a line on Page 7 that had <br />whether it should be left in the code. <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated th <br />not really needed as the building code requirements gov <br />Communiry I�evelopment Director Ericson su <br />the table on Page 8 of the November 15, 2000 <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he <br />xnalce the sign code more clear. <br />Commissioner Mi11er inquired as to �vhat an <br />;n is � <br />there <br />and inquired as <br />e siateinent could be left i.n but is <br />ern those types af isSues, <br />e Pla�u�ing Comanission °review <br />f the chart as $e felt it would <br />Community Development Directorr'Ericson indicated uXcidental signs were signs lilce an <br />ATM sig�;�`address signs-ar riameplate signs, exft'szgns;��and signs far public telephones. <br />Cammissioner Jalinson indicaied tllat ground signs, if allowed in R-3, R-4 and R-S <br />districts, shou�d i�at exceed eigh# feet,an.height. <br />CammunityDe�elopineiit Ijirector Er�oson suggested allowing 32 square feet of signage <br />for R-3, R=4 and R-5 di'stricts. ,. <br />Ericson indicated there is no allowance for signage in <br />zoning districts. <br />Chairpersan Ste�enson indicated the signage allowed for R-O should be tha same as <br />�3. <br />