Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission January 17, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson gave a copy of the November 15, 2000 draft <br />revision of the Sign Code to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller stated there was not a provision concerning caring for the sign. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated care of the sign is addressed in <br />other parts of the code under nuisance or nonconforming signs and there is a prohibited <br />signs section covering a sign not being maintained. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kaden referred to a line on Page 7 that had been deleted and inquired as to <br />whether it should be left in the code. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated the statement could be left in but is <br />not really needed as the building code requirements govern those types of issues. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson suggested the Planning Commission review <br />the table on Page 8 of the November 15, 2000 report. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson stated he liked the format of the chart as he felt it would <br />make the sign code more clear. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller inquired as to what an incidental sign was. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated incidental signs were signs like an <br />ATM sign, address signs or nameplate signs, exit signs, and signs for public telephones. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated that ground signs, if allowed in R-3, R-4 and R-5 <br />districts, should not exceed eight feet in height. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson suggested allowing 32 square feet of signage <br />for R-3, R-4 and R-5 districts. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated there is no allowance for signage in <br />R-O zoning districts. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Stevenson indicated the signage allowed for R-O should be the same as <br />for R-3. <br />