My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-17-2001
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
01-17-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 7:35:52 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 7:35:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted the document received from Staff on November 15, <br />2000 contained a table stating ground signs in R3, R4, and R5 were to be no taller than <br />six feet from grade. Vice Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to whether the primary <br />reason for that was to address apartments for rent. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson explained that statement was not actually in <br />the code but was added by Staff for consideration. There currently isn’t any height <br />allowance because signs are not currently allowed, yet if signage is allowed Staff feels <br />there should be a height limitation. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson noted Staff would need to note somewhere in the sign code <br />that pedestal signs and freestanding signs are now referred to as ground signs for <br />clarification. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated pedestal and freestanding were <br />terms Staff believed to be duplicative and unnecessary as ground sign covers them both. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson asked if the November 15, 2000 draft document covered the <br />majority of the sign code. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated everything with the exception of the <br />table was currently in the sign code. The table was Staff’s addition for consideration. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated it was Staff’s mistake not to be <br />consistent with the rewrite by underlining what was new and crossing off anything Staff <br />felt could be deleted. The document is not a true reflection of what is in the code but <br />what could possibly be done to clean it up. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson inquired as to whether the Planning <br />Commission was happy with the listed heights for signs and the areas the various height <br />restrictions applied to. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether it was possible to put together a sign code <br />that is progressively more restrictive based on zoning that would simplify this discussion. <br />He then asked if Staff could put together a chart based on that information. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated that is basically what Staff has done <br />with the November 15, 2000 document referred to by Vice Chairperson Stevenson. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission took a brief break to allow Community Development Director <br />Ericson to make some copies of the November 15, 2000 document to be reviewed. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson suggested a statement be added to the definitions indicating <br />that the definition of freestanding and pedestal signs are now referred to as ground signs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.