My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/29/2012 9:14:03 AM
Creation date
2/27/2012 4:13:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
932
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1Vlou�ds �l�evv Planning Cosramis�ion Janua�y 17, 2001 <br />l�egular IVieet�ng p�gQ �p <br />Coinmunity Development Directar Ericson asked how the Plaruling Commission felt <br />about wall signage for commercial property. Currently commercial properties are : <br />allowed to have 100 square feet of wail space in additian to a freestandu�g sign. , He <br />aslced if the wall signage should be limited by indicating a total number of square fee"t for <br />both the wall sign and the freestanding sign. <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated the!; Woodlawn: Terraca and <br />Scotland Green multi-famiiy carnplexes have signage on their buildings'in addrtzon.to �. <br />their ground signs. He questioned whether 64 square feet was ;needed or if in R-3 district <br />the maximiun should be 32 square feet. , <br />Commi ssioner J'ohnson inquired as to whether in R-5 dzstricts there needed to be an <br />atlowance for wall signage if a trailer park with an office wanted� to have:'a. sign or i� an <br />aliowance was needed for wall signage in an R-O zoning di'strict. <br />Connnaunity Development Director Ericson indicated he did�not believe:R.S and R-O <br />properties would need wall signage. <br />Vice Chai erson Stevenson stated mosti ; lar e ho�sin coiii lexes would have non- <br />� g g l� . <br />conforming signs ii the ground signage maximum was any less thari 32 square feet. <br />Commissioner Miller inquired <br />signage currently exists for each <br />Commuruty ]Development Direci <br />Commu�iity Development 17irec <br />feet is that niost signs, wera four <br />won't be in confoi-n?ance: <br />Vice C�airperson Stev.enscin st� <br />allowed``to the size of the.n�oberi <br />Ericson <br />pful to lrnow how much <br />has this information. <br />indicated the i-eason he suggested 32 square <br />►at size. There are some signs, hawever, that <br />it "might be bene�cial ta relate the size of the sign <br />Coxrunissioner Johnson :stated`he would like to approve 64 square feet of ground signage <br />for the R-4 zoning distncts. <br />Coii�unissioner Hegland suggested relating signage allowed to the size of the property. <br />,, <br />Co�nx���nity Development Directox Ericson indicated ther� may be a way to tie the size of <br />`the si�'allowed into the size of the project but indicated he didn't want to break it down <br />too far or it would become difficuit ta adminster. <br />Commissioner Hegland suggested opening up #he signage requirement to 100 square feet <br />and hope common sense would lceep sznaller properties from putting up a large sign. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.