My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1988/10/03
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
Agenda Packets - 1988/10/03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2025 11:06:24 AM
Creation date
4/9/2025 11:06:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/3/1988
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council <br />FROM: City Planner Herman <br />DATE: September 26, 1988 <br />SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT FOR MULTI -TECH BUILDING, <br />2205 WOODALE DRIVE <br />Mr. Tim Nelson, on behalf of Multi -Tech, has submitted <br />preliminary signs plans for the building. In reviewing the <br />proposal, I do not believe the second ground sign conforms to the <br />Code. The first (larger sign) .located along Highway 10, while <br />not a pedestal sign, is well within the size and setback <br />requirements for B-3, B-4 and I-1 districts. I believe it is an <br />oversight in the Code which states pedestal signs rather than <br />ground siqns [39.15 (11)]. <br />The proposal illustrates a second sign located on the corner of <br />Woodale and Quincy. It is the size of this sign which I believe <br />does not conform to the Code. In 39.01 (6), Pedestal Signs, it <br />states: <br />No business property shall have more than one pedestal sign <br />adjacent to each street upon which such business property <br />abuts; provided that on each street_ frontage or more than 100 <br />feet one additional pedestal sign may be established and <br />maintained on such street frontage if such additional pedestal <br />sign (a) is located on a single pole, (b) does not exceed 28 <br />square feet in an area on any side and does not have more than <br />two sides, (c) is not more than 4 feet in width or 7 feet in <br />height on the sign face, (d) is located at least 7 feet above <br />the surface of the street. <br />While this applies to pedestal signs only, the Code :foes not <br />regulate ground signs and only mentions them in the definition <br />section. Aside from the height of the sign or that it is cn <br />posts or shafts, a ground sign and pedestal sign are quite <br />similar. In fact, it is questionable that a pedestal sign, <br />allowed in 39.15(11), is more desirable than a ground sign. <br />Ignoring for a moment this ambiguity, the second proposed sign is <br />72 square feet rather than the allowed 28 square feet. This in <br />my opinion is the issue, not the height of the sign. Because <br />this second sign is substantially over the Code requirements for <br />height and size, I request direction from the City Council. I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.