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
li�iouncis View Plan�ing Cornrrgis��o� <br />I�egula�° 1�I�etin� <br />.ranu��y �7, zaoz <br />Page 11 <br />Community Development Director Ericson suggesied instead of basing the allowed sign <br />area on acreage of the property, to allow sigxiage by the number of units. <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested parameters that would give larger <br />capability to have a larger sign. _ <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated th <br />sign in a B-i district. He suggested that this district be <br />restrict total sign area fo a l OQ-square foot maximum. <br />Community Development Direcfior Ericson indicated B-2 i <br />sign currently ax�d suggested allowing 200 square feet of gr <br />Community Development Dzrector noted the City Council°vv <br />on Ordinance 672 per-taining to home occupations and asl�ed. <br />needed to address allowing signs attached to maiiboxes-to r� <br />Vice Chairpersan Stevenson indicated he did not believe; the <br />needed to be addressed since a mailbox is in`the rigl�t-of way <br />allowed. <br />Cor�sent was reached by the <br />previausly approved. <br />��� �ommissioi� to let <br />}irector Ericson <br />�Ie witl� the 35-f <br />no provzsiax� z� <br />to have. a pale <br />t�iit alloi�ed to have a ground <br />izit� sigii. <br />ould be ta.ktng fiiial. action <br />the Commission if i� felt it <br />main. I <br />issue .of signs' on mailbaxes <br />and the!si�n would not be <br />672 go to Council as <br />s'to whether the Planning <br />restriction for signs. <br />Vice Chairperson �Stevenson suggeste�i�Staff add a row to the tabla in the report dated <br />November 15 to acidress .height of sign by zoning district. <br />Community Develapinec�ti Director Encson noted there was discussion to change signage <br />allowed based on units for R-3 and R�4 zaning and asked what the consensus af the <br />Co.minission was. <br />,, <br />, ,;,, <br />,. <br />Cansent was reached by_the Planning Commission to leave the signage allowed at eight <br />square feet. <br />Coznrtlunity Development Director Ericson inquired as to vvhether the Planning <br />Commisszon feTt` it was appropriate to encourage monument signs over pylon signs by <br />providi�lg a sinall area bonus to businesses choosing monument over pylon signs. The <br />City would still allow for pylon type si�s. <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to whether a 20-foot heigh� allowance for <br />businesse� zoned B-3 along Highway 10 was enough. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.